Talk:Rigoletto/Archive 1

*Rigoletto*
Rigoletto
opera in 3 acts by Giuseppe Verdi
	Giuseppe Verdi, composer of Rigoletto, 1876
Librettist	Francesco Maria Piave
Language	Italian
Based on	Victor Hugo's play Le roi s'amuse
Premiere	11 March 1851; La Fenice in Venice

This is an archive of past discussions about Rigoletto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Question

Did Liszt actually transcribe the opera Rigoletto? Or just the famous paraphrase of "Bella figlia dell'amore" in Act IV?

Notability of Armando Gabba, baritone singer

A user has been edit-warring for deleting this entry:

Armando Gabba, a baritone opera singer who performed in 1984 with Renato Bruson, Edita Gruberová, Brigitte Fassbaender, and Neil Shicoff in Rigoletto, and is still active

from the disambiguation page Gabba, arguing that he's not notable enough to ever have a Wikipedia article, and thus to be listed as a redlink on a dab page. You can provide opinion and information (positive or negative) about it at the discussion page Talk:Gabba so as to help sort it out.

Thanks,

-- 62.147.112.36 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Roles box: "dash" looks like "smiley face"?

These blanks are gradually being filled in by members of the Wiki opera group.

Certainly more spacing is fine if you object to the "smiley face" look, but there seems to be little point in changing over all of the "Roles" boxes for every opera to "not known".

I support User talk:Whjayg's revert. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Painting of the composer

This appears twice and I wonder why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.230.181 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because whoever created Template:Verdi operas didn't check to see if the picture chosen duplicated the one already in the article. Eek! That was me! However, I've now substituted a photo for the article's painting. Maybe I should go through all the articles on Verdi's operas to see if this happened anywhere else. --GuillaumeTell 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

E il sol dell'anima

Where is this song in the synopsis? Dylan Hsu (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Act 1, scene 2, when the Duke reassures Gilda that he loves her. I've added it to the synopsis, together with the "Addio, addio" ending to the duet. --GuillaumeTell 01:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Orgy" is inaccurate

At some point in the editing of the synopsis, the opening scene of the opera (a ball in the Duke's palace) became an "orgy". A few modern productions, e.g. at London's Royal Opera House in 2001, have depicted it this way.[1], [2]. However, this is not what is described in the actual libretto:

"Sala magnifica nel palazzo ducale, con porte nel fondo che mettono ad altre sale, pure splendidamente illuminate. Folla di Cavalieri e Dame che passeggiano nelle sale del fondo - Paggi che vanno e vengono - Nelle sale in fondo si vedrà ballare. Da una delle sale vengono parlando fra loro il Duca e Borsa."

English translation:"A magnificent room in the ducal palace, with doors at the back which give onto other rooms, also splendidly illuminated. A crowd of lords and ladies stroll about in the rear rooms - pages come and go - in the rooms at the back people can be seen dancing. The Duke and Borsa come out of one of the rooms conversing with each other."

When writing synopses, media descriptions of specific productions and/or second-hand synopses should always be checked against the original libretto. In the interests of accuracy, I am changing "orgy" to "ball". Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds as if whoever put "orgy" in there didn't understand what "ball" meant here! --Thnidu (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Banda

(Also posted on Wikipedia:Help desk)

Instrumentation includes "banda", with a redlink to Banda (opera). I've just been looking for what is meant. "Banda" is Italian for

Band (in all senses); banner; company, crew. — civica, municipal band.

(Cassell's Italian Dictionary, 1967)

I have started a draft article, User:Thnidu/Banda (opera), which so far is barely even a stub but does have one offhand reference. I would appreciate any elaboration, especially by someone who knows the territory.

I have been looking for a more exact forum to post this in but without any success. List of musical ensemble formats looked promising but is minimal.

Thnidu (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Banda is Italian for band, but it has a special and well documented role in opera, not only Verdi, althugh he used them a lot, but also Rossini and other composers of the era. I've expanded your draft at User:Thnidu/Banda (opera) and added further sources. There is definitely enough now to move it into main space where it can be further expanded. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now moved to article space at Banda (opera). Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of composer navbox

Per Robert.Allen on Don Carlos, I propose that Template:Infobox opera be removed and replaced with Template:Verdi operas. The long-serving navbox is more useful and non-obtrusive, while this new Infobox opera is distracting and adds no information that is not already and better presented in the lead. --Klein zach 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

To not repeat the same arguments (opera navbox is redundant, infobox is meant to repeat key facts), please let's argue at Don Carlos, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, if you are going to go from article to article doing this kind of thing, each instance needs to be noted. By the way what other articles now have these boxes? --Klein zach 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see Don Carlos for update, As you probably know, links to a template can easily be found using the function "What links here". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree – The navbox should be restored and the Infobox removed. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me what is wrong with this infobox, while a general discussion is going on on the project level, quote (not by me) "My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

We've spent the best part of the last three months explaining what we think is the problem with your infoboxes. If you want some references try the last AN/I started by Andy Mabbett here. Klein zach 14:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the question. I would like to know what you think is wrong with this particular infobox, agreeing that we spent too much time on AN/I. Rigoletto is is not a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? 1. It isn't as useful as the navbox. 2. It doesn't summarise the article (as any worthwhile infobox should). 3. It doesn't help the opera newcomer understand what Rigoletto is. Want any more? I can probably add another three or four. Or are we just playing games to put off the inevitable reversion? Meanwhile, of course, none of us are contributing to the encyclopaedia. --Klein zach 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The side navbox (see Falstaff (opera)) is not useful at all because all of it re-appears in the bottom navbox. I have been lectured that duplication doesn't serve our readers. Any infobox is more useful than that.

2) I am sure that you see the word "summarise" too literally. The first objective is to give the reader an idea about a time and location of the article topic, in this case time and theatre/city of the premiere. The infobox also summarises the main people associated with it, composer, librettist, and author of the play that serves as a base. It could go further, but the design objective was to keep it simple.

3) Would the navbox help the opera newcomer what Rigoletto is? - The infobox has a link to the list to works by Verdi, that has a link to "opera", - whoever doesn't know a thing, can click deeper.

The infobox serves the reader better than the redundant navbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Many articles in many other wikiprojects have an infobox and a navbox; they serve different purposes. The infobox provides summary information for the article in question, the navbox helps find related articles within the project. Both fruit, but definitely apples and oranges. And Kleinzach, comments like the above, using the "royal we" to describe your own views in oppisition to those of Gerda, are rather close to a personal attack, given that there are clearly two sides on this issue and more than one party on each. Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a nav box at the top of an article before. They've been at the bottom. That's where this one should be. As for infoboxes I agree with Gerda. As for all this protracted bickering over Infoboxes, which most users seem to enjoy viewing, I really don't see what the problem is with using them. And when you meet St Peter at the Pearly Gates, is bickering over infoboxes what you want to say you accomplished with your life? PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely right. People used to write articles. (If you want to see my record, have a look at my userpage.) Now we have people coming here with an agenda to disrupt that work by putting inappropriate boxes on all the articles. Klein zach 23:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"inappropriate boxes" how are infoboxes inappropriate? They are well accepted by the community. And "disrupt that work" shows the root of the problem....you think you OWN this article. PumpkinSky talk 01:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky: Please do me the courtesy of reading what I write. I did not say that infoboxes are inappropriate. I have used a great many of them. However there are bad ones — as others have noted. Also re. OWN, I'm not the principal contributor here. I am one of many people who have contributed. Please be more circumspect in your comments. --Klein zach 03:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, what do you mean, "... the bottom. That's where this one should be ..."? There IS one at the bottom. The one on top to be "restored" is redundant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not when I looked at it there wasn't. It was at the top.PumpkinSky talk 20:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rigoletto currently: infobox at the top, navbox at the bottom, the version that I support. "Restoring" means returning to a former version similar to Falstaff: navbox at the top (operas and works) AND at the bottom (general including operas and works), redundant. (Needless to say: Falstaff was already restored, as many others that I didn't count.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's keep this simple: Side navboxes are silly and are easily confused with infoboxes, which are generally helpful to the article and placed at the beginning of an article. Navboxes at the bottom are generally useful and to avoid confusion should not be placed on the side... Kleinzach, whatever else is going on here, the real point is only that. Further, please remember to AGF; no one has a "disruptive agenda" here, unless disagreeing with you is somehow inherently "disruptive." Which I doubt, use of the "royal we" notwithstanding. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The top right opera article navbox was designed many years ago and has enjoyed a strong consensus from the opera editors. The purpose of the box was to make it easier to move from one opera article to another, and also tell the reader about similar articles of which he/she may not have been aware. The lower page navbox was designed for main article biographies etc. (The content of the lower page box is sometimes a bit wider to reflect this different usage.) (I'm ignoring the personal comments here — life is too short — pity they are so prevalent.) Klein zach 01:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a strong consensus that nav boxes should be in the bottom, and infoxes in the top right. You're the only one I see supporting your viewpoint here. PumpkinSky talk 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have a look slightly higher up this page. Also note there are lots of top right navboxes, e.g. Category:Prehistoric period navigational boxes, Category:Ancient Greece campaignbox templates and Category:Olympics navigational boxes. If you work through the categories you'll find lots of them. Ergo there is no consensus on positioning. --Klein zach 07:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I do support having a (small & accurate) infobox on any article, but I do also agree that {{Sidebar}} is a widely used template/system ("44673 transclusion(s) found.") and I do also agree (with the as yet unspoken position) that our 2 overlapping template-navigation systems/locations are confusing! (And are the result of years of parallel development. The sidebar started off from the basis of Wikipedia:Article series, afaik.). FWIW, the ordering guidance if both (infobox and topright-navbox) are used on one page, is at MOS:LAYOUT#The lead section. Sorry to confuse matters further! :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claimed "strong consensus from the opera editors" is immaterial, when it is counter to the string consensus for an alternative option shown by the wider community. I won't bother to explain why, as you've been told this many times over the years, and appear to be wilfully ignoring it. Again. Your various assertions ("designed for main article biographies", et al) appear to be inventions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should have one navbox, at the bottom. People are more likely to read an article to the bottom, then want to go to a related one, than to want to go to the related article while they're still at the top of the first. The infobox proper should be kept, to both provide a handy summary of key points from the article, and make them machine-readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kleinzach, Viva-Verdi, and Robert.Allen that the old template should be restored. Template:Infobox opera seems clunky and it is far easier and more comfortable to read in the first two sentences of the lede the information which it duplicates. No clamour of complaint was ever present about the old template - if it ain't broken, why fix it? - otherwise one might assume that there is merely some attempt at being WP:POINTy here.--Smerus (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you agree with me that all links in the sidebox are repeated in the bottom navbox, whereas a date in template form appears only in the infobox, and only the structured information in the infobox is useful for Wikidata. Did you read the related Signpost article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I think the infobox is intrusive and completely useless; and I am not aware of any evidence base to indicate that it has any use. 2) I think the metadata sogennante 'argument' is a complete scam, as even if metadata are supposed to be essential (and I am not going to debate that here) , there is no reason why they should be embedded in visible features.--Smerus (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just replied to your near-identical first point, at Talk:Don Carlos. The metadata argument is not a scam, and metadata is not "embedded" in visible features; visible features are invisibly (to humans) marked up so as to be machine-readable as metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See my more recent comment at Talk:Don Carlos for my refutation of this. --Smerus (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of attention to, and your denial of, evidence presented to you, indicated there, refute nothing here, nor there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Kleinzach, et al. The old template should be restored. Per BRD, consensus needs to coalesce clearly for this kind of change and the old template should be restored. Eusebeus (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Side comment here. The standard infobox is a useful tool for wikipedia users who are taking a casual glance at an article, in addition to the metadata issues. Design issues are a different debate, but not one sufficient to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I am personally of the view that most articles past stub class benefit from one. The classical music projects are among the most reactionary on this topic; the sciences and most biographical articles have been using them - effectively - for years. Montanabw^(talk) 15:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is you are rather reactionary, in the sense of out of date - the attitudes I am expressing seem to be in line with the latest thinking - See for example here and comments - wake up and smell the coffee!--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, I read that article, that's a different discussion about style and content. Here, you're just behaving like a rather nasty S.O.B. who is insisting that everyone else is far inferior to you. It's this sort of bullying and intimidation that discourages the people who actually try to improve the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Unequivocal apologies, I was not thinking in terms of a personal attack, was overeacting to being classified as reactionary. Agree it was uncalled for. But as you have now called me a nasty SOB I guess we both have something to regret. --Smerus (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. Perhaps that wasn't the tone you intended to convey, but it was the tone that came across. I will note that I stopped short of implying something like Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, as I do fully acknowledge your humanity and that you are probably a perfectly fine person outside of this particular spat. But so too are Mabbitt and Gerda - decent folks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup, they know how to say things right in Montana! :-}--Smerus (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: I carry a sort of torch for Gerda - just can't agree with her over infoboxes. I think we have learnt to accept this about each other. With Mr. Mabbett it's somehow not the same. (Sigh).--Smerus (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I would propose that "somehow" has something to do with testorsterone, perhaps... out here, we refer to this as a "two bull elk in Yellowstone" thing. (guys...sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have stalled here. I make it myself, Kleinzach, Robert Allen and Viva-Verdi in favour of restoration. Against: Gerda, Pigsonthewing, PumpkinSky, Montanabw. Both ways: Quiddity. Is this analysis correct?--Smerus (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Quiddity seems quite clearly to support including an infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The general discussion Infobox vs. side navbox is still open and still has only arguments by me, which are for the side navbox only "I like it" and "We always did it that way". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ps: could perhaps a decision be made following reason, rather than counting noses? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't - and don't - suggest coming to any sort of decision, let alone by counting noses. My question was simply one of interpretation. The discussion Gerda refers to doesn't, by the way, seem to be bringing in storms of comment (or reasons). How will that one be resolved? Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, Please do not misrepresent other's arguments. As i've said several times, I find the composer navbox more useful than the infobox. I also do not find that infobox adds anything, and I think it is distracting and obtrusive. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you please add to the discussion on project opera (link above) why (!) you find the navbox (which duplicates the bottom) useful, and why you find the infobox which concentrates on the article distracting, while I find the navbox which navigates away distracting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is I think also necessary for Gerda and her supporters to explain why any change of the status quo is necessary or appropriate, not only for those who oppose the change to make explanations. In a typical month over the past two years, between 17,000 and 20,000 users have veiwed the Rigoletto page (in some months 30,000 viewers or more). None of them have complained about the previous box, or made representations that ti should be changed. On this discussion, four editors who are regualrly active on music and opera articles have opposed its change. One such regular editor, (the proposer), suppots it. The other supporters are not active or notable in any way as editors of content on music or opera articles. The mass of users, as the evidence shows - and Gerda I know is keen on evidence - have not requested a change or expressed discontent with the status quo. This evidence, I wil undelrine, amounts to 200,000 or so viewings per year. There is little to be gained by opposers stating, as Gerda requests, 'what is wrong with the infobox?' That will just be a matter of taste - 's/he likes some details of it, I don't - so what?' The issue under discussion is not, 'what can be done to make this infobox acceptable?' - it is 'why is there an infobox here at all, when there is no evidence that the previous situation was in any way unacceptable?'. It is not sufficient for supporters of change to say - as in effect they are presently doing - "We can change to an infobox - and therefore we should change it." So would Gerda 'please add to the discussion on the project opera page' (to use her own formulation) by explaining why the desires of herself and her supporters should outweigh the passive evidence of several hundred thousand article readers of this article alone, and several million readers of opera aticles as a whole.--Smerus (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please distinguish 1) infobox in general, 2) infobox for opera, 3) infobox for Rigoletto? Your question goes for 1) and 2), this is the page for 3). Repeating patiently: the side navbox here is redundant to the footer navbox and navigates away from the article. The infoboxes places the article itself (!) in time and geography, at a glance. I prefer that. It doesn't take musical expertise to feel the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As I have clearly stated elsewhere, I believe that arguments for infoboxes shouldbeconducted on a case-by-case basis. My arguments all apply to the infobox here, and require answers here; if I wanted a general discussion, I would have gone to the relevant page. I respectfully request answers from Gerda (or from Gerdaists) to my points about this page here. However, if Gerda can use the discussion here to request comments elsewhere, then so can I - and I think any justifications that can be produced for this particular page would be interesting in a general context. I am not interested in sidetracking to discussions about sidebox vs. footerbox, which imo are trivial and distract from the issue of infobox placements. Moreover, as the discussion here is continuing, and the infobox for Rigoletto is clearly contentious, I formally propose that it be replaced by the previous template at least until such time as this discussion is completed. --Smerus (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In an attempt to be helpful, I will be as explicit as I can. The discussion, initiated here by Kleinzach, proposes the restoration of the template. Discussion of the merits or otherwise of the infobox, or of sideboxes vs. bottom-boxes, are side-stepping the topic of the original proposal. Additons to article content whih are alleged to improve it are assumed to require justification, e.g. by citation. In the present instance, citatiois irrelevant, but it is not unreasonable to ask the person who makes the change to present reasons for that change. I have suggested above some reasons why I believe that a change was prima facie neither required nor appropriate. It is incorrect to seek to change the nature of the discussion to 'Please tell me what is wrong with this infobox' (see this page, 12:54, 8 July 2013). The issue is whether or not there was any justification for single-handedly changing the original template. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that this infobox is contentious, in the way infoboxes for composers are. Bruckner's symphonies have infoboxes since 2007. This composition is comparable. - For a new device to be discussed, it needs to be seen, a sequence of installation and reverts (as Sparrow Mass) is not helpful. Thanks to everyone that it was avoided here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, you are not answering the question which I hope I have made clear. I am not writing about Bruckner symphonies. I am writing about this article. The discussions above make it perfectly clear that this infobox here is contentious and it seems to me pointless to try to avoid this issue. For 'you not to agree' that it is contentious does not make the question go away. Can you please provide your justification for replacing the exisiting template on this article with your infobox? We can then discuss the case you put forward. If there is no justification that you (or anyone else) can offer for discussion then it seems to me to be clear that we can immediately revert to the old template.--Smerus (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When I installed the infobox I did nor realize that it could be considered contentious, as something that offered structured information on this opera, replacing navigation that is available at the bottom. I felt supported by the option of an infobox for operas, "My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so." (Voceditenore). My mind is unable to grasp that anybody would prefer duplicated information navigating away from the article to information on this article. I stand corrected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Gerda, thanks for this explanation. Now that you are able to grasp that people may think differently from you, which perhaps you had not gathered from previous infobox disucssions in which you have been involved, perhaps you can comprehend the concern which the infobox here has generated. And perhaps you may be willing to revert it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Smerus' apparent belief that the "mass of users [he conflates that term with "readers"]... have not requested a change or expressed discontent with the status quo", or that "there is no evidence that the previous situation was in any way unacceptable", means that there is no reason to change is a logical fallacy on several levels. It's a non-sequitur. No-one is claiming that the status quo was historically "unacceptable", but rather that there is now an improved way of doing things. Those readers may not have known about the existence of a better navbox; or of the infobox. indeed, they may not have existed at the time of many or the majority of their visits. Typically most readers make no suggestions or edits to Wikipedia. The only issue for consideration is not whether the article was acceptable ("good enough", one might say) in the past, but whether the article is better from now on with the old navbox, or the footer navbox and an infobox. The case for the latter option, with its multiple benefits (and not merely "we can", as such arguments are so misleadingly described), has been made. It appears that there is no cogent case for the former. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this contribution. According to this, 'the' case for the infobox 'has been made'. But the problem is that whilst 'a' case has been made, 'the' cogent case hasn't be made here - or anywhere else, at least in the opinions of myself and many other users - and, as Andy Mabbett is aware, the infobox issue has proved highly contentious not only in classical music/opera articles, but elsewhere in Wikipedia. In the discussion on this page, hardly anyone has made any case at all as to why one source of duplicating information (template) should be replaced by another (infobox). 'A' case (but not 'the' case) for the previous template was that it had proved until now perfectly satisactory, with no complaints; therefore, 'why mend what isn't broken?'. Because interpretation of cases is inevitably subjective, - and because the WP line is that infoboxes are neither compulsory nor forbidden - neither the case for, nor the case against, infoboxes, is ever likely to be made 'cogent'. Therefore positive reasons for change should be established in each case where change is in question. For these reasons, for example, I don't support the removal of infoboxes where article creators have established them. It seems to me that in the absence of compelling reasons for change, maintenance of the status quo is a relevant and indeed strong argument. And it further seems to me that the unsolicited change of template to infobox without previous discussion, in a context where the use of infoboxes was known to be controversial, was taking WP:BOLD a step too far.--Smerus (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I replied in the case evidence, look specifically for "Perfectly acceptable": infobox opera, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Improvement

I believe that the quality of the article would be improved by an infobox, in place of a redundant navbox in the position where an infobox is more normal site-wide: the infobox (repeated from talk project opera)

supplies an image that gets close to the specific work, for example the composer at the time when he wrote it or a scene/stage from the opera
is about the article, not leading the reader away as soon as he enters it
supplies a date in templated form {{start date}} that can be used for sort, compare, calculate, and that can be rendered in different forms, cultures and languages - a service beyond the English Wikipedia
supplies other key facts in structured form "at a glance" which is for some readers more accessible than prose
is site-consistent.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Infoboxes are not de rigueur. Also, this is merely a continuation of the ongoing discussion. I see your first example re to show an image of "the composer at the time when he wrote it" is specious and irrelevant, since the navbox can easily be modified to do this (as you are already aware). Re yor second point, the same could be said of the first wikilink in the article. So what? --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I support the idea of a more informative infobox. Perhaps the navbox could be moved further below? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that one idea from Gerda's proposal is very relevant - about supplying an image relevant to the work or period. However, that issue does not itself have any bearing on info-boxes vs. navboxes - it could also be adapted for the navbox, and perhaps it should be.

The other arguments don't seem to me to apply however.

'Is about the article, not leading the reader away as soon as he enters it' - not so, as the infobox is also full of hyperlinks which could 'lead the reader away'. In any case, I assume we credit readers with suifficent intelligence to undestand whast a hyperlink is, and whether or not they want to use it. Furthermore, the infobox duplicates information immediately to its left.
I don't see why the issue 'supplies a date in templated form' is relevant in any way. If this information is indeed important, (which I personally doubt) it can be embedded invisibly into the text (in the same way that, e.g., Persondata is); no explanation is given as to why an infobox should be necessary for this.
What is the evidence (as distinct from the belief) that an infobox 'supplies other key facts in structured form "at a glance" which is for some readers more accessible than prose'? If readers can't read prose, why are they accessing Wikipedia in the first place? The criteria for acceptable Wikipedia articles include, of course, well written prose - they do not include the use of an infobox. The former is the priority, and negates any supposed need for the latter.
What does 'site-consistent' mean? Infoboxes are optional on Wikipedia. If it simply means 'not site inconsistent', that is not a reason for employing one.
The proposals by FoCuSandLeArN thst there should be both an infobox and a template seems to me a recipe for pointless and ugly clutter.
I note Eusebius's concern thast each template be debated individually, but it seems clear that no generic 'authority' cf either Wikiproject Opera or of the Wikidata project can be applied. However if discussions like this can set out general principles, that might in itself be helpful in limiting further contention. I therefore hope that Eusebius might comment here in more detail.
I have specific objections to the infobox itself as proposed by Gerda. First, and overridingly, that it seems completely redundant in that all the information is available to its left, as mentioned above. Apart from this, there are in any case, design faults in the thing itself; 1) it is itself an example of clutter, with both 'Giuseppe Verdi' and 'Rigoletto' appearing twice in its small space. 2) why the word 'genre' which is also clutter? Just 'opera in 3 acts' would be sufficient. Whilst these latter two points are slight in the overall context, they also cast doubt on the concept that an infobox is always going to be clear and helpful to users. To me, for what it is worth, it just looks clumsy.

I therefore oppose the proposal.--Smerus (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Support infobox per Gerda. The infobox is of an acceptable design, and content within can be a topic of further debate, but this is simply a variant of {{Infobox person}}, which exists on thousands of wikipedia articles and is completely appropriate for composers and their works. Navboxes lead people to other articles and are often included, though at the bottom of an article (so as not to lead a reader off the current article prematurely) Infoboxes are for the start of an article to provide an appropriate quick overview. The opposition ot this proposal is nitpicking in a manner that throws the baby out with the bathwater. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)