Talk:Léo Delibes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

title[edit]

The title of this article should be Léo Delibes, not Leo Delibes. Unless anyone objects, I shall make the move tonight. -- Rmrfstar 13:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*phew* thats done! Rmrfstar 00:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source Links are dead[edit]

The two Cited Source links were dead when I tried them tonight--Dec. 11, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmuse (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Léo Delibes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info-box[edit]

Please see the discussion at the Mozart talk page. (I know you have seen it already as you have been accusing me elsewhere of lying on it.) The consensus there is for no box, and it seems unlikely that there will suddenly be one here. In particular, adding a box that takes the reader out of the article to another page altogether is rude and unhelpful and contradicts the stated function of info-boxes at the instruction page: i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". Removing i-b until such time as there is a clear consensus to have one. Tim riley talk 11:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not this again? Of course the IB is pointless and a haven for factoids only tangentially related to the subject. There was no box on this article until one was slipped in last year, and no discussion to confirm any consensus as to whether it's an improvement or not. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification. The Infobox was not "slipped in last year". One had been in the article since 2012 as {{infobox musical artist}} [1]. Last year I simply changed it [2] to {{Infobox person}} which is more suitable for classical musicians, if an infobox is to be used. It was not "a haven for pointless factoids" unless you consider dates and places of birth and death, birth name, and occupation to be "pointless factoids" about a person. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with infoboxes containing such "factoids" [3]. Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography [4]. But by all means, delete it if you're that bothered by its presence. Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- my mistake on the dates: I misread something, so thank you for correcting me. (And yes, I do think the dates and places are of limited importance. Aside from the fact they are bracketed in the first line of the lead, they don't really convey anything of importance about the individual). Either way, that moot point aside, I thank you for your last sentence, which is most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to associate myself with SchroCat's thanks to Voceditenore for such a flexible and collegiate approach. O si sic omnes.. Tim riley talk 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Returning from a beautiful vacation day. Of course I know the Mozart discussion. (I have not said anybody was lying there.) We (who think an infobox or ibox or info-box is helpful to some readers, who are less able or willing to find something in the well-crafted prose of a lead) are told again and again that the discussion has to be on each individual article, so what we find on Mozart or Beethoven doesn't matter for Delibes. I also won't have to tell experienced editors that when a bold edit - such as removing this infobox - is reverted, a discussion should take place while the article is returned to the state pro-ante. I'll give you time to think about it. The most peaceful way would be to revert to the state with infobox. I am bothered by the removal. I am further bothered by a removal without even indicating in an edit summary that a removal took place. Who wants another infobox discussion? If we look at other composer articles for a model, let's not look at Mozart and Beethoven but Percy Grainger. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reduce your standard objection to what might be valid for this particular infobox which was introduced on on 11 June 2012 by Krenakarore, and improved by Voce on 5 July 2018 and seems not to have hindered further editing nor let errors creep in. This is an infobox that respected editors have added long ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In a few succinct words, G Arendt, please explain why the overwhelming consensus chez Mozart that an i-b is a rotten idea for composer life-and-works articles is in any way irrelevant here. Your salami tactics of nagging away at each article, or just sneaking i-b's in without discussion, may have been tolerated by the supremely tolerant BB, but some of his admirers and mentees are less willing to be bullied. As it happens I discussed with BB your efforts on one article – it may have been Grainger – and he shrugged his shoulders and said the fight against the obsessives was not worth the effort. I disagreed, and still do. Tim riley talk 21:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The few succinct words are: life is too short, for any of this. My memory of BB dates from 2013 when he offered the identibox as a way of compromise, in the article and on my talk. My position regarding Mozart didn't change since my last entries there, and I don't see any need for repetition. If you want me to repeat, I'm quite willing to post it again, which I tried to avoid in the name of peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back home, a few more words: It's Sunday, I go to church, you don't - that's fine. Some think infoboxes are a rotten idea, others think they add access for some readers - that's fine. I pictured "my perspective" in a 2015 concert, performing Fauré's Cantique de Jean Racine and Requiem. The latter article has no infobox because I respect the preference of a former boy soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact I have been to church, but what that has to do with this discussion I cannot imagine. As you are dragging religion into it, I am reminded of Oliver Cromwell's plea to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken". It must be nice to know you are right, but even so, please try not to disrespect the consensus. Tim riley talk 15:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going to church? Is that a new bar to editing? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if the image I used was unclear. I find that infobox yes or no is like a religion, and debating about it makes little sense, and I am not going to be a missionary nor a martyr of the infobox. I see the word consensus abused sometimes. What I respect is the gentle voice of reason of Voceditenore. Please don't revert her again. She may not mind, generous as she is, but I do. Yesterday, I worked - with Yoninah - on Psalm 85, with the famous kiss of Justice and Peace. A good goal even if - as I just learned - it may be a misunderstanding of the Hebrew. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A religion? Well, that explains the fundamentalism shown by some, but no, it's not like a religion. It's a piece of formatting in the corner of the page. Sometimes beneficial, sometimes not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As said just above: I respect Voceditenorer, - look. Can we agree that Delibes is an opera-related biography? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that only one person is pushing the point again and again here. I thought peace had broken out after there were no further comments on 16th, but you came back to the yawning silence on the 19th to push it again. There really is no further point in continuing this: you even push back against no responses, so I'll leave you to continue to talk in an empty room. The IB is not on the page, several people have given resons for not having one, Voceditenore has said to people "But by all means, delete it if you're that bothered by its presence", which leaves just one person pushing the point, so I'll leave this discussion, rather than go round in circles yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not surprisingly, I agree with the opposers on this. Just because an IB existed in 2012, doesn't mean to say it has to remain indefinitely. We are always told by those who like IBs applied uniformly across the site that "Consensus can change...blah, blah, blah"...well, it just has, and the fact an infobox was added without consensus, means we are now ahead of you as we have a consensus, and you don't. See you in another eight years when it will be your chance to add one back in again. Oh, and Gerda, the bold edit was the edit that contained the IB, not the one that removed it. So please take heed of WP:BRD where you will find that the infobox is always the bold edit, as it can't exist without someone putting it there in the first place. Please note, should anyone here wish to discuss this at my talk page, in a more general tone, please feel free. But this will be my only comment here. CassiantoTalk 08:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You believe that a feature that was in the article from 2012 can be treated like vandalism - removed without an edit summary - but I think it creates a stable condition which - when changed - should come with reasoning, especially in an area of controversy. We discussed this on Barkeep49's talk, but we can seek further clarification with the arbitration committee if it remains unclear. Justice and Peace, see above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to threaten someone with ArbCom when you know they are under a restiction of one comment only. So much for justice or peace - or even decency. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How come you think clarification is a threat? I strike it anyway, and hope that you simply understand that good-faith edits of years ago deserve better treatment than vandalism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another Ahrend distortion of the truth: with the edit summary "additional info and refs; rem uncited and duplicate material" this "vandalism" consisted of flagrantly and wilfully expanding the article from 585 words to 2,317. Give your obsession a rest, please and do something useful instead. You used to contribute good material in the days when you were a colleaguely colleague, and I hope you can revert to that. Tim riley talk 12:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for expanding the article. I didn't say you left no edit summary, I said you didn't mention that you removed the ibox. - My article creations are rather open, and I like collaboration. We used to have three calm years regarding infoboxes. May it stay that way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Léo_Delibes&oldid=1212396850"