User talk:Hoary

Dear Sir Hoary, I don't know how you can say these aren't independent, reliable, and published sources. Instead, they're all documented and reliable, and the text reflects and complies with corrections made by other administrators. Please, if you intervene and block the draft every time and it's never the same, it's impossible to communicate. Please, I'll try to revise it, but all the demonstrations held abroad—there are so many and well-documented ones—should already mean a lot. Have a good day. Elanim (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Elanim. I've moved your comment to the foot of this page (where it belongs, as it's new) and reformatted its title. I'll look at Draft:Gaetano Minale afresh tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You are very kind and I would thank you if you reread my draft tomorrow. All the sources are true and justified with the titles. I would like to point out that almost all of them are news from before the 2000s, that is, before the advent of the Internet. Elanim (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim:

• Promotional wording: The obviously promotional wording, which Drmies and Netherzone remarked on earlier, has gone. Good. But what's left seems self-promotional in its resemblance to a curriculum vitae in seeming eagerness to list anything that could be listed, regardless of its significance in an encyclopedia.
• Reference formatting: Back on 9 December, Drmies wrote "References are done poorly, if at all--bare URLs simply do not cut it." ("Bare URLs" and their drawbacks are described in Wikipedia:Bare URLs. "Do not cut it" is an idiom meaning 'are inadequate'.) On 13 December I commented "The formatting of the references is a mess. I have improved the formatting of one reference; now you improve the rest." I don't notice any improvement. Today I improved the formatting of a second reference; will this inspire you to do more?
• Trivial publications: On 13 December I also commented about what was in "Pubblications news papers and periodicals" (a title that I have since renamed) that "[i]f one of these articles says something significant, then summarize it and of course cite the article for the summary; if however it fails to say anything, then cut any mention of it". This doesn't seem to have had any effect.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: The greater the number of somewhat obscure exhibitions and awards that are listed, the less convincing the resulting draft becomes. If an organization or event that held/holds an exhibition or gave/gives an award has an article in English-language Wikipedia, I suggest that you link it to that article. If it doesn't have one, but does have one in Italian- or other-language (French, etc) Wikipedia, I suggest that you use Template:Ill to link it to that/those article(s). If it has no article in any Wikipedia, I suggest that you cut any mention of the exhibition or award.
• Actual titles: If you're writing about, or citing, a publication with an Italian title and without an English title, then give the Italian title. (You're welcome to add an English translation of the title, but not in a way that suggests that this is the actual title. Template:Cite book and the other templates in that family make this easy.)
• Conflict of interest: The very first version of this draft was created by U:GAETANO MINALE. Revisions and augmentations since then have been by you, Elanim, which very obviously is "Minale" spelt backwards. Your list of contributions demonstrates that your sole interest in English-language Wikipedia is Gaetano Minale. Please read, digest, and act on Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (particularly, Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You can do so on your user page, or on the talk page of the article you have a conflict of interest with) and it:Wikipedia:Conflitto di interessi (whose content differs only slightly from that of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).

-- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Hoary, thank you very much for the many suggestions you suggested. I tried to eliminate some things and will try to do so again. As for the text, I will reduce it to a minimum, trying to make it less self-promotional. I will eliminate insignificant news titles. I have mentioned very few exhibitions, only those abroad. I will try to translate motivations or awards, etc., into English, even if it will be difficult for me. I will write the titles of the books I have done in English and improve everything before sending the new draft. It is true that I used the surname backwards and not Gaetano Minale because I have had unpleasant surprises in the past. I also used a profile expert, but Wikipedia blocked him because he does not accept payment. Now I am doing everything myself. I am inexperienced and thank you again for the suggestions. I hope, however, that when I send the draft again, it will not be another administrator who blocks it. Have a good day, see you later. Elanim (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, Hoary, I've made some corrections you suggested, and before resubmitting the draft, I'd ask you to take a look and let me know if I can, or make other corrections. My concern is that once resubmitted, it won't arrive. As always, another administrator will block it for other reasons; this has happened dozens of times already. I'm 87 years old, and I'd like to leave with this task accomplished. Thank you, and best regards. Elanim (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim, here's my earlier list:

• Promotional wording: Has been cut. (Not perfectly, but well enough.)
• Reference formatting: Still needs plenty of improvement. (I wonder if you understood my earlier comment.)
• Trivial publications: Still needs plenty of improvement.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: Good, this has been improved.
• Actual titles: What appear to be Italian books are still described with English and not Italian titles. If you're referring to a book (or magazine, article, etc) with an Italian title (and not an English one), you must provide the Italian title (you are welcome to add to this your translation of this title into English).
• Conflict of interest: From what you write above, I infer that you are Gaetano Minale. Please say this directly in User:Elanim, for anyone who might be interested.

Good luck with the draft! -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary for the clarification. Elamin, I'm Gaetano Minale, 87 years old, forced to write things that are difficult for my age, and fortunately, with your suggestions, I can correct them. I'll make a few more corrections and send them, hoping this time I can get to the end... I'm tired... Best regards. Elanim (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir Hoary, as I expected, another new administrator took over and cancelled the draft today, and like everyone else, copied and pasted the same motif. How sad indeed! I thought the English Wikipedia was different. Thank you for your contribution. Elanim (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Elanim, like the great majority of draft reviewers, Vestrian24Bio is not an administrator. (No matter, as whether a reviewer is or isn't an administrator has no effect on a review.) A draft may be "accepted" (promoted to article status), "declined" (very common), "rejected" (much rarer), or deleted (very rare); not "cancelled". Yours has been declined.

The draft I have most recently accepted (promoted) is now the article Lovett Auditorium. This is the state the draft was in immediately before I made minor changes to it and promoted it to an article. As you can see, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. But it has no list of items similar to your:

Abruzzo periodical La Voce, no. 4, April 1978, page 3, features an article in giramondo frentano about Minale's solo exhibition, his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano, held from March 4 to 24, 1978. Title header, - With an exhibition for the inauguration, Minale is the first guest at Gallery 46 some quotes: Minale, a young artist originally from Molise who has long lived in Abruzzo; he is defined by many critics as "a Georgian and modern painter, he can be defined as a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament." Signed F.D.P.

Indeed, I have never seen a list of such items in any article.

The word "Georgian" has a wide variety of possible meanings, but let's put aside its ambiguity for a moment. Then a possible use of this piece from La Voce would be:

Minale was described in 1978 as "a Georgian and modern painter ... a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament".^[1]

-- although the title (of course the original, Italian-language title) would have to be specified. (I've used "???" to show where the title should go.)

Simply, you shouldn't provide a list of sources, saying what's in each. Instead, you should construct a narrative and for each part of this you should provide a source. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir, thank you for your reply. La Vove wrote the article in 1978 as his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano. I've now attached the entire written page for you to read, in Italian of course. "Georgian painter," not Georgian, "Georgian" means a painter from another era, but modern. I can attach all the reference pages, and I will. What's sore is that they all use identical catchphrases, and no one specifies what is or isn't wrong. In short, you're the only one who gave me some pointers. I'll try to attach more information, but I already know how it ends. Thanks if you can help me further. Elanim (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

No further comment, Elanim, until I have read and considered your reply to Netherzone's question. Be sure to make it candid and informative; and of course post it on your talk page, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy!

I ended up bein' away for a little bit and so my Teahouse thread got archived before I could reply to anyone, but the writer for the "scintillating" quote on the George Freeman article isn't named. That'd be because the author's name isn't in its original source (best I can guess is that they're called "Samson," but I don't wanna brush with WP:OR since I can't prove it), which is their website. This was actually somethin' I had to tangle with when I combed through the first time-- I went back n' forth a lot as to whether to remove the quote entirely, since it's hard to evaluate if somethin's an RS when there's no named author, but opted to let it stay because that person is also quoted in the Guardian article that's cited to that same line (I know the number of cites on that one were also asked about-- that's the explanation for 2 of 3 of them, without havin' evaluated the third at present.) I assumed that'd be okay if they were both there together, but I'm open to being corrected.

The reason that there's still no name even then is because the Guardian article basically uses the exact same line that's in the Wiki article-- also referrin' to the quote's author only as a "music writer."

It might not've been worth comin' here to discuss it, so I apologize if I'm just pestering ya, but since you asked and it's a bit of a weird situation, I thought it wouldn't hurt to elaborate.

Thanks so much for the reply! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 04:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Janitor Judy, that all sounded curiously complex, but I thought that the clouds might lift if I just looked at "the Guardian article that's cited to that same line". However, I don't see any citation of The Guardian either in the article as presented for reading or in its "source". (Apropos of "source" as humans type it here, this is not HTML or XHTML -- it's instead Mediawiki -- and has no need of <p>paragraph tags</p>.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello [Hoary],

I’m reaching out to request guidance on how best to proceed with an ongoing notability discussion related to the article Terrell Groggins.

I am a COI/PAID editor and have been using talk pages and edit requests exclusively, per policy. I’ve provided multiple independent secondary sources for editor review, but discussion with one editor has become circular, with repeated dismissal of sources without clear direction on what would resolve the concern.

I want to ensure I’m following the correct dispute-resolution process and not inadvertently causing disruption. Could you advise whether this is best addressed through WP:3O, WP:DRN, or another venue, and whether my current approach aligns with policy expectations for COI editors?

Thank you for your time and guidance. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

VisualArchiveEditor, on the talk page, you say you're "requesting" (of course just an innocent typo for "making" or similar) an RfC. But you aren't. To make that request, you have to use Template:Rfc. It's all rather involved; and it's been so long since I last made an RfC that in order to understand the process fully I'd have to read up on it just as you would. (Indeed, I'm not certain I've ever made an RfC.) Which takes me to the question you ask above. First, read up on RfCs and decide if you want to make one. If you do, then revise your request so that it will function as an RfC. If on further reflection you don't, then briefly say so at the foot of that section. If there's a dispute over notability of an article subject, the best place to settle it is I think an "AFD"; but of course it's a notability-disputing editor who would start that off. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification regarding the RfC process. You’re right — my earlier wording reflected intent to seek broader input rather than the formal initiation of an RfC via {{Rfc}}. After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time.

Given your subsequent remarks on the article talk page — particularly that World Press Photo, the Center for Creative Photography, and the Smithsonian Institution are respected, independent institutions, and that awards or institutional recognition from them are “an achievement and worth mentioning” — I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question.

In light of that assessment, do you think the current maintenance tags on the article (general notability under WP:GNG and the BLP sourcing caution notice) remain appropriate, or would it now be reasonable for those tags to be removed pending further editorial review?

I’m not seeking to escalate or reopen disputes, only to ensure that the article reflects consensus-based application of policy. I appreciate your guidance on this.

— VisualArchiveEditor (talk) VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time. Ironically, using the template started an RfC. I undid that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

VisualArchiveEditor, I've removed the "notability" warning and have commented on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 76#c-Hoary-20251217083600-~2025-40636-03-20251217070000

How did you do that font?

Erikgobrrr (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking about Template:Tq? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you!

Erikgobrrr (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course Template:Tq shouldn't be used just in order to change color or font. To change color, you can simply use any of a number of color terms (for example olive, with Template:Olive) -- although links within this won't be recolored. -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 11, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I was adding leads to pages with none when I came across a page nominated for the deletion. The editor has been on WP for a couple of months so is autoconfirmed. They've created a handful of pages which all of seem undeveloped and moved back to draftspace or nominated for deletion. I'd like to propose that they only be able to create articles through AfC. What's the best forum for this? Thanks MmeMaigret (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Mme Maigret. This sounds like what we call "a CIR issue". If this editor really seems incorrigible (at least in the short term), then what you propose can and probably should be done; however, please observe this before proposing it (probably to WP:ANI). HTH. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, that was exactly what I needed. I've started at Repeated mistakes and put an explanation and suggestions on their talk page. Cheers MmeMaigret (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your addition to the talk page is good, MmeMaigret. Just one little point for future postings of similar messages: I'm sure that many editors here will never have heard of Cliffs Notes. And (cough), completely irrelevantly, you wouldn't happen to be interested in coffeehouses, perchance? -- Hoary (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I was disappointed that the encyclopedia entry I started was rejected. Although you kindly recommended it, I decided not to follow your recommendation to create an entry for the book Kibbitz and Nosh. That will have to wait. Instead I revised the entry on Marcia Bricker Halperin this evening. I also asked @ForsythiaJo to help make the entry suitable to you and your fellow administrators. Because @ForsythiaJo had improved upon my start, I thought she could improve the entry further.

I bought Kibbitz and Nosh when it was first published. I was very impressed with her work. Bricker Halperin is an excellent "street photographer" in the mold of Helen Levitt, as ForsythiaJo pointed out in the text. I won two photographic awards myself but I am not in the league of Bricker Halperin. Iss246 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

And, Iss246, I was disappointed to decline it. (Sorry for the tiresome terminology lesson, but here in Wikipedia "decline" means "'no' for now, but there's hope"; whereas "reject" means "'no', you're simply wasting your and others' time". And while I'm pontificating, the great majority of draft reviewers aren't administrators; and if a reviewer happens to be one, this has no effect on the review.) I googled for the book after writing my first comment; and I liked what I saw (though my tastes are irrelevant) and was sure that the book was "notable" as defined here (which is highly relevant).

Your latest additions make it even clearer that the book would easily merit an article; but it does nothing for Halperin's work outside this book/series. I'm ready to believe that her series on Hell's Kitchen, Brighton Beach and then-new Soviet immigrants similarly merited/merit exhibition and publication, and that if that happened there'd be perceptive reviews that could fuel an excellent article. But as yet the draft doesn't show this.

There are few articles here about individual photobooks. And these articles are rather a sorry lot: some of the photobooks are of doubtful significance, and a number of the articles on photobooks of clear significance -- Suburbia, Tiny: Streetwise Revisited, Harvard Works Because We Do -- are feeble. The article The Sweet Flypaper of Life is a refreshing exception. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you user:Hoary for your response. I am going to continue to work on entry because I already feel momentum. I am going to make one or more additions today. If I ever get the entry accepted, I will turn to Bricker Halperin's fine book, which sits on my bookshelf with other photography books. I will continue to try to keep @ForsythiaJo involved, if she has the time (she is a very busy but excellent editor). Iss246 (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Iss246, as I've indicated, I've mixed feelings about the order in which you're doing this, but I'm happy to see that you're persevering with coverage (whether in one article or two) of Bricker Halperin and her book. Certain aspects got me thinking ... and then I realized that it had been almost nine years since I'd created the article Jill Freedman. As for your bookshelf, my own has a lot fewer photobooks than it did a couple of years back, but still rather too many: one reason why I pretty much stopped writing about photographers was that reading up on them got me more interested in their work, which made me want to buy too many of their photobooks. They take up far too much space! ¶ Another matter: Dubrow's really deserves a decent article -- and an article about the photobook also deserves such an article on the cafeteria. But the article Dubrow's Cafeteria is shaky indeed. Much of it consists of unreferenced genealogy, as well as "popular culture" trivia. And a blog, no matter how conscientiously maintained, is not a satisfactory source (unless perhaps it's by a subject expert or has been praised by other, indisputably reliable sources). So if you have access to social histories of New York or similar, you might consider bolstering that article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in photography. My goal now is to bolster the article about Bricker Halperin. I do a little each day. I did not use any blogs in contributing to the article. Nor did @ForsythiaJo. I hope that user:ForsythiaJo, an experienced WP editor, returns to the draft. Getting the Bricker Halperin entry online would be good because then I can think about entries for both Kibbitz and Nosh and Dubrow's Cafeteria. One goal at a time. Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

It's good now, Iss246. If you resubmit it, I'll "accept" (promote) it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I got your message about periods and commas.

Based on your message, I changed the text from "Little Odessa," to "Little Odessa",

I saw the following:

"the kind of family where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home, but on Sunday nights we’d go out to the Chinese restaurant."

I left it alone because the period was part of the sentence by Bricker Halperin. I thought I was right to do that? Enlighten me if I got that wrong.

I also left this sentence alone:

"Her record of New York’s long-gone cafeterias, rendered in black and white, have graceful architecture, dazzling or moody lighting and more than a few characters, like Gene Palma, the slick-haired street drummer and Gene Krupa maven (who was also featured in Taxi Driver)."

It is a quote of a sentence by the writer David Gonzalez. Let me know if I got that wrong.

In the quote from Christopher Porter, which I indented, I now put quotations marks around it (I am accustomed to the use of an indent for a longish quote without quotation marks; I left the double quotations marks around the quote-within-a-quote alone because I followed Porter).

However, I put standard double quotation marks around the entire indented quote and put single quotation marks around 'liveliness and sorrow of urban life' because it is a quote within a quote.

Let me know what you think. Please edit if you think a punctuation persists. Iss246 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Iss246, "the kind of family where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home, but on Sunday nights we’d go out to the Chinese restaurant" [I'll call this S (for "string")] is indeed rather complex. I took/take S to be the object of "had" (and within S, "where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home, but on Sunday nights we’d go out to the Chinese restaurant" to be a relative clause, syntactically rather strained, as spoken English often is). That is, if S is a syntactic constituent. The alternative would be "the kind of family where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home" as the relative clause, and "but on Sunday nights we’d go out to the Chinese restaurant" as a coordinate with "[I was brought up in] the kind of family where my mother kept a kosher kitchen at home" (in which of course "I was brought up in" is merely one of many possibilities). If "I was brought up in" or similar isn't added, S is not a constituent but instead just the concatenation of two constituents. But however I interpret S, it's not a sentence. On another hand (the third?), I haven't yet had my second coffee of the day, so I may be deluded.

I agree with you on the Gonzalez quote.

"[T]he use of an indent for a longish quote without quotation marks" is the way to go in en:Wikipedia too. For indenting block quotations within articles, we normally use either <blockquote> ... </blockquote> or Template:Blockquote. (There are also more or less exotic alternatives, which you needn't worry about. Anyway, not line-starting colons.)

As it's clear that you are concerned with even the smallest blemishes, you may have noticed, and been concerned by, the inconsistency in using (A) straight/non-directional/ugly quotation marks and (B) angled/attractive quotation marks. Wikipedia prefers the former. But don't waste your time converting: some "bot" (or person concerned about such trivia) will come along and do the conversion for you. -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Gattonside House... crikey – a lot of clumsy mistakes on my part! Mac Edmunds (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Glad to learn that they went down well, Mac Edmunds. I hope you don't mind that I dehonourablized, e.g. changing "the Hon. Mr and Mrs Francis Montgomerie" to "Mr and Mrs Francis Montgomerie". I thought that mere honourables (as opposed to right honourables and certain others) weren't particularly eminent; and since Wikipedia normally skips "Ms", "Dr", etc, the word was dispensable. -- Hoary (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Not a problem with the honourables. As you say, they’re not particularly relevant given the context. And as Wiki tends to skip these sorts of pre-nominals, they’re probably best left out. Mac Edmunds (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, is there any chance you'd consider undeleting this draft? It was submitted as essentially a blank draft by a new editor struggling to start out, but I've offered to assist the editor with developing it (which I'd much rather than have them turn to ChatGPT). I know that the single reference had utm_source=chatgpt.com in the url, but that isn't a WP:G15 criteria, as it only indicates they used an LLM to search for sources (which I'll discourage them from doing so any further). Thanks! Nil🥝 05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Done. It looks an utterly hopeless cause to me; of course, I hope I turn out to be wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, but we live in hope. Much appreciated! Nil🥝 06:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

"Yes, me too", I'd like to say, Nil NZ; but as

• no substantive change has been made to this "draft" in 23 hours;
• it strikes me as just as hopeless as it did 23 hours ago;
• WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Self-published_peerage_websites says The following self-published peerage websites have been deprecated in requests for comment: ... thepeerage.com ....;
• no:Sophie_von_Hessen-Philippsthal, however incomplete this may be, has the woman look like a nonentity.

-- I trust that you will quickly improve the "draft" to a point where I don't regret its continuing existence. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Thank you today for Adolfo Farsari, introduced (in 2007) as an "informative, very readable, and excellently illustrated survey of a nineteenth-century photographer"! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I was surprised to see no infobox for the photographer. I have a composer on the same page, Heinz Winbeck, my story today, and matching music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Gerda, I am happy to see no infobox for the photographer. Certain kinds of people -- models ("supermodels"), tennis players, porn starlets, prime ministers, etc -- lend themselves to such comparisons. Unless perhaps they are doggedly commercial photographers (reverently photographing models in frocks or with hair fictionally aerated with shampoos, etc) -- photographers do not. Though of course infoboxes for photographers can be bulked up with more or less promotional material, trivia, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to disturb your TFA happiness. For me, an infobox is simply the place where, per our MoS, a reader can expect to find together when and where a person was born and died, standard for encylopedias. Compare Beethoven, - it can be as consise as that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

If the article on Beethoven started not Ludwig van Beethoven (baptised 17 December 1770 – 26 March 1827) was a German composer and pianist but instead Ludwig van Beethoven (baptised Bonn, 17 December 1770 – Vienna, 26 March 1827) was a German composer and pianist -- close to what is done for the German, French, and Spanish articles about him -- there'd be one reason fewer for an infobox. The German article of course has no infobox, and is that much the better! -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a first line as you propose would serve the purpose, but our MoS is different, going for a more concise first sentence, which is a different advantage: getting past technical details to the person's doing sooner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In the past, I've attempted more compact alternatives. Suppose it were discovered that the Beethoven baptized in Bonn on 17 December were somebody else -- a future notary, wool merchant, or whatever -- and that "our" LvB had instead been baptized on 6 January. I can't imagine how this would affect anyone's estimation of his symphonies (either their composition or their performance). The date must of course be specified, somewhere, and the specification must be accurate -- but it really doesn't matter. With that in mind, I've done the equivalent of simplifying Ludwig van Beethoven (baptised 17 December 1770 – 26 March 1827) was a German composer and pianist to Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) was a German composer and pianist, deferring the details of birth to the first sentence after the lead. But I quickly gave up, as my idea was obviously unpopular (despite being licensed by MOS:BIRTHDATE). -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, also for seeing "obviously unpopular". (I saw the same.) Giants remembered today, RD Helmuth Rilling and OTD Friedrich Cerha 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for copy-editing! - Today something new: a 100th birthday of someone alive, György Kurtág! In 2004 I was there when he and his wife played for the Rheingau Musik Festival where he was the featured composer. They played as the 2019 DYK said, on an upright piano, - listen, the last piece was the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Today's main page features four biographies I helped to bring there, two women and two men, three opera singers (one pictured) and an actor, - a record for me, I believe ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)