Talk:Hans-Joachim Hessler/Archive 1

Hans-Joachim Hessler
Hans-Joachim Hessler
Born	7 January 1968
Nationality	German
Education	Gymnasium Petrinum, Recklinghausen
Alma mater	University for Music and Performing Arts, Graz
Occupations	Composer; Musician; Musicologist;
Website	www.hansjoachimhessler.de

Infobox

The infobox, which has been in this article since it was published, has been removed multiple times, but an editor who apparently believes, mistakenly, that it is contrary to the polices WP:BOLD, WP:IBX, WP:COMPOSERS. On the contrary, there is nothing in any of those polices which prohibits it. Its continued removal is disruptive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added the infobox as a bold edit; once you were reverted, you should have sought consensus on talk before continuing. It is good to see that you have finally brought the dispute to talk, but unfortunate that you have chosen to re-add it before waiting for consensus to emerge. While discussion is ongoing, the article defaults to the status quo, which was the version before you added the infobox. WP:IBX tells us that whether or not an infobox should be included is determined via consensus on article talk. The guidelines listed at WP:COMPOSERS indicate that composer biographies typically do not include infoboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making up rules as you go along. Please desist. You removed the infobox; once you were reverted, you should have sought consensus on talk before continuing. The guidelines listed at WP:COMPOSERS, as you have previously been informed, carry no weight here. The infobox has been in this article since it was published. It is for you to show consensus for its removal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added the infobox; once you were reverted, you should have sought consensus on talk before continuing. You may have added it before you mainspaced it, but the original version had none. You've presented no reason to contravene the best practices determined by the WikiProject, nor any reason why this article in particular is in need of an infobox. After all, they're not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article was the one with the infobox in it. You removed the infobox; once you were reverted, you should have sought consensus on talk before continuing. There is no requirement for anyone to justify an infobox's inclusion, much less to do so to satisfy the peculiarities of a group of editors whose supposed local consensus elsewhere is not binding on this article. Again: please stop inventing rules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken: the original version had no infobox. You boldly added one on 12 December, and I reverted you later the same day. Since it was your bold edit that was reverted, it was incumbent upon you to seek consensus prior to re-adding; you opted not to do so. Since you'd like an infobox here, you should justify including one; after all, they are by no means required. You are no doubt aware that WP:IBX privileges local consensus because a global consensus on the issue does not exist, and of course the relevant project guidelines say that one need not be included on articles of this type. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken: the article as published had an infobox. Since your removal of it was reverted, it is incumbent upon you to seek consensus prior to removing it again. You opted not to do so. Since you don't like an infobox here, you should justify removing it; after all, they are by no means prohibited. Local consensus, as a core Wikipedia policy, enjoys no privilege. Local consensus reached in project guidelines outside this page, doubly so. Again: please stop inventing rules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the sequence in which you perform edits does not give primacy to your preferred version. Local consensus is privileged by WP:IBX because the only global consensus on the matter is "neither required nor prohibited". Project guidelines describe best practices for articles within their remit, which in this case means no infobox absent a clear consensus otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again: please stop inventing rules. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring has to stop. Infoboxes in general provide useful summary information and metadata, so have value. Although cases exist where infoboxes may not be appropriate, the onus is on those wishing to remove functionality to make that argument. Lacking any good reason to remove an infobox in this case, I've restored it. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this before, but have never quite gotten an answer: what metadata is provided by the infobox that cannot be included by other means? In this particular case, the onus is on the person wishing to deviate from the status quo (Andy) to justify doing so. There is a local consensus not to include an infobox, and no global consensus mandating them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus on this article to remove functionality and you're edit-warring against two editors now just to impose your own point of view. This is not the way that we edit on Wikipedia and you need to revert yourself. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RfC being planned on the Composers Wikiproject that might change the current best-practice guidelines; you're both welcome to participate when it opens. Until that time, though, it's best to follow the established guidelines for this article. Since the infobox is not the default, there doesn't need to be a consensus to "remove functionality" that wasn't there to begin with. Now, could either of you answer my question? Is there a way to provide metadata without using an infobox? If we could find a compromise position, that would certainly be preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course there are other ways of providing metadata, but just because other means are possible, that doesn't mean they are preferable. You are making a mistake in thinking that a WikiProject can substitute its own view for the general practice on Wikipedia, and {{infobox person}} is present in the majority of biographies that have developed beyond stubs. I do agree that there will exist articles where a musician (for example) is badly served by an over-coarse précis; in those cases, the article is probably better without an infobox, but you need to make the case in any given article. Blanket removal of infoboxes (such as the one that is illustrated to the right) is an unjustified removal of the functionality the boxes provide: an easy-to-read summary and the emission of metadata which is useful to major re-users such as Google.

Now, if you think this article benefits from not having the userbox as shown, please adduce your reasoning here and we can seek a consensus on those specifics. It is not helpful in seeking common ground to rely on vague generalisations like "the established guidelines for this article" - as you know, there are none concerning infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to metadata Template:Persondata. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers can and should be disregarded as it only an WP:Advice page demonstrating a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that has been disputed for years that its writers know will never pass Wikipedia:PROPOSAL. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes is our guide - that says " discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So best to talk about the merits and negative aspects to a box here - and now. Who cares about the past. Also would like to point out that WikiProject Composers does not have a banner here so how would anyone ever see there bad advise page from here?. WikiProject Composers has this problem were people will not add there tag because of these problems - people trying to hide articles from that project.Moxy (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) OK - first I'll admit to getting here via stalking some edits and actions rather than this really being a subject that I spend a lot of time on. Personally I also prefer to have infoboxes in articles for a quick fact check (rather than having to read through the whole article). I'm also not familiar with the wp:composers group, so I don't know how diligent they are about all articles conforming to a particular "style". At the moment on this particular article it seems that Andy and RexxS want the infobox "in" and Nikki likes it better without the box. If someone wants to ping me when the RfC becomes live, I'd like to comment though. Perhaps a WP:3O or RfC for this article might help sort things out for the time being. If my voice counts in this discussion, again, I'd be in favor of the infobox. I think they're (the factoids) more visible as infoboxen style than as meta-data. Just IMHO. Hopefully I can get Mark to undo the blocks if you folks could quit with the back and forth for a while. Right now it seems like more support FOR the box, but I'm not going to jump into an edit war(?) to choose my own preferred version either. — Ched : ? 18:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the infobox with a 350px wide image; alt text; no unused parameters; Germany unlinked; and Graz as the sole (sourced) alma mater - per this suggestion. Would this be reasonable common ground for moving forward? Hopefully, --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming no one else objects, sure. The whole article, including most of the infobox content, is lacking citations though. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doug. Nationality should be linked, per WP:REPEATLINK. Why would we not include all alma matres? Unsourced facts of this type should be marked {{Citation needed}} in the body of the article, to encourage editors to find sources (where they may be defamatory, they should, of course, be removed from both infobox and article, but not just the former). Relevant blank parameters should be included to encourage editors to research, source, and complete them. This is how the encyclopedia is improved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought the encyclopedia was improved through collaborative editing. Does this mean you're unwilling to accept a compromise, Andy? That's disappointing. Nationality should not be linked per WP:OVERLINK, and the term "alma mater" refers to schools from which one has graduated - there's no indication that that is the case here. Besides, infobox bloat is a concern because once it becomes very long and filled with unsourced or trivial details, it can no longer provide as meaningful a précis of a topic. I agree that the article needs significant tagging and/or cleanup, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those things facilitates collaborative editing. WP:REPEATLINK is a subsection of and included within WP:OVERLINK. Our own article alma mater makes clear that the term is not restricted to institutions from which one has graduated; as does Wikitionary ("A school or college from which an individual has graduated or which they have attended"). I don't see anyone calling for "infobox bloat", whatever that is, nor "unsourced or trivial details". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the subsection; I'm not arguing against repeating the link, but against including it at all. Surely you're aware that wikis aren't reliable sources? My own dictionary gives "educational institution from which one has graduated" for "alma mater", and a quick web search seems to agree that that is the conventional meaning. Now, are you willing to try to reach a compromise? That would certainly facilitate collaborative editing more than insisting on having the box as you prefer it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed that you'd removed the link in the body as well; it should be restored there, also. The OED (reliable enough for you?) says alma mater is "a person's former school, college or university"; nothing about graduation. And I'm happy to adhere to Wikipedia's policies on consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not see Germany or Germans linked in general articles. It has always seemed to me that most people reading the English Wikipedia are very likely to know where Germany is, and that neither of the linked articles offer much information that is actually germane to an understanding or appreciation of biographies of German people such as Hessler. To me, it's the same sort of logic that led to us delinking dates - not really relevant to the article, and too many weak links dilute the good ones that are made. But that's just a personal opinion of course. As it happens, I also prefer not to include every parameter for every template: I accept your point about encouraging editors to do more research, but parameters do change and some templates have so many that it could easily be overwhelming for newer editors (at least that's my experience in trying to teach templates at workshops - but YMMV). I have no real opinion on alma maters, other than when the article gains more sources, it may be easier to decide at that point. I'd be happy enough to see us go forward with an infobox similar to the one showing now - it's fine for the moment, but I'd still rather we could reach an agreement on something (anything) first. It would be much easier to solve problems in other similar articles if we could understand better each other's views and feelings. Both of you are decent folk who want what's best for our encyclopedia, but disagree on what that is, and a chance to agree on this would surely be helpful in the future? Happy New Year anyway! --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comments about referencing notwithstanding, the definition of alma mater is unambiguous. Perhaps if I were to agree to compromise on empty parameters and linking nationality, in this article, Nikki would agree to cease stalking my edits, removing infoboxes from other articles when I add them? And perhaps we can also restore the infobox to Melville Island (Nova Scotia), per the consensus on its talk page? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's claim that the article was "created" with an infobox is highly disingenuous. All the text was written by a new editor, without an infobox, by this edit. That editor hasn't commented here (or edited at all since December 12th), and as far as I can see no one else, and none of the editors on this page, has added any actual information or text to the article - this is purely an argument by essentially drive-by editors on the appropriate degree of cruftification. Episode 97 of a long-running saga. Andy added the infobox very quickly, but the fact is the article was "created" without one. The information in the infobox does not seem here, as it so often is, actively misleading, but equally it doesn't add anything very essential to the first lines of the article. Personally I'd support dropping it, especially as the composers project is against them. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The views of the composers project, as made clear in their own RfC, and above, have no weight here. The first appearance of the word "created" on this page is in your post. And say I'm being "highly disingenuous". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "as published", up above. Same thing. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My statement "The infobox, which has been in this article since it was published", and others to that effect, are correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The point is, John, that the article was created in the AfC incubator and Andy added an infobox on the third ever edit to the article, so that by the time it was moved into mainspace ("published"), it had an infobox. In any case, I think it's a mistake to give much weight to the "first major contributor". Although it's a useful tie-breaker if all other factors are equal, it becomes a recipe for stagnation if too liberally applied. New editors cannot be expected to understand templates, and their failure to include them when they are the first major contributor is much more likely to be lack of experience than any preference for not including them. I reject the "disingenuous" epithet as unhelpful, and I think you ought to strike it.

You must also be prepared to accept that one person's "cruftification" is another person's technical improvement. Many visitors will find that having a quick summary in a familiar location is helpful and you can see that in the way that Google has now started to produce summaries for its search results - usually scraped from our article, of course. In addition an infoxbox can encapsulate metadata that can be read by Google and others by automated means. To imply that editors who make technical improvements are somehow less entitled to an opinion than others is simply wrong, and by your definition, all editors are "drive-by" editors.

Now, your argument that the infobox doesn't add anything very essential is on-topic and deserves to be taken seriously. My reply, of course, is that a summary should never be adding something essential that the summarised text omits. But I do understand that you may not see the infobox as a summary, so I respect your right to disagree with me about that. Nevertheless, I think the strength of argument is against you here, and as I'm looking for a compromise that all parties can live with, I'm going to suggest that the infobox formatted in line with Nikki's suggestions is the nearest thing to common ground that we're likely to get. Could all of us live with that for the moment? --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the process. Clearly Andy is not the "first major contributor"; I give a lot more weight than you do to such people, especially when the article is a pretty nicely written and full piece as here, but as I say above we have no specific comment from him here - he probably and understandably thinks we are all mad. I have nothing against well-done infoboxes in the right places, but experience shows that biographies of creative people is one of the areas where they persistently cause problems. I have nothing against metadata either, though I think WP is too dodgy a source to be reliable for it, but that should be put out of sight, or at the bottom of the article, in one of the templates we have for that purpose. I am very strongly against cluttering the top of all articles on principle in the cause of metadata. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're aware of the process, you should have been aware that your effective claim that the article was published without an infobox was bogus; and your claim of me being "highly disingenuous" in that regard an unacceptable falsehood. "First major contributors" (however that is measured) have no special authority or weighted voice in such matters. If anyone believes that's wrong, I challenge them to suggest - at WP:VPP - that it become policy, and thereby to test the community's support for it. That said, I'm quite happy for you to ask an uninvolved OTRS agent to examine the correspondence which led to me publishing the article, to see whether the earliest author objected to the infobox, or thanked me for my contribution. Oh, and infoboxes are one of the templates we have for the purpose of emitting metadata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]