This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
This entire sub-section was removed here with the edit summary: "Doubtful notability. Half of the section is entirely unreferenced, widely unapropriate secondary source which is a ukrainian nationalist website. Please find an actual scholary source if you intend to reinstall these." Do other editors agree with this appraisal? Could other editors provide any better sources? Some of the material seems to be simple statements of fact which should be able to be easily sourced elsewhere. Without any of this material, there is no other substantive mention of Ukraine in the entire article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for that clarification. I tend to agree with you about restoring it. I see that the IP editor concerned has been editing only since 11 April 2019 and geolocates to Russia. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with restoring it (thank you Michael for reminding me of the history -- I remember now -- needs to be better cited). I'm always leery of things that look like nationalist pushes, e.g. Tchaikovsky was really Ukrainian, as was Stravinsky, only no he was Polish, no American -- but the Ukraine connection with Tchaikovsky is genuine. Antandrus(talk)13:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Ukraine did in fact not exist as a political entity at the time. Rather, it was a subdivision of the Russian Empire. Mentioning a region despite it not having independence at the time that it was mentioned is allowable and helps narrow down the region. If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine." Lavaminer99 (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia must be true. Ukraine and Ukrainians did not exist at that time. This is an artificially created state. So remove the fake from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
IP it is difficult to take you seriously at all, when you remove an entire section from an article repeatedly, shout in caps on the talk page, and repeat the same thing over and over again. First of all, Ukraine was not first "created by the USSR", see Ukrainian People's Republic. Either way, the Ukrainian region has always been home to the Ukrainian ethnic group; please refer to Lavaminer's comment above "If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine."" – and this is indeed how secondary reliable sources refer to the event. You need to provide secondary reliable sources (that apply to Tchaikovsky's life specifically) which align with your perspective here, otherwise your comments will not go anywhere. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
See Aza24's comment above, please: we need reliable secondary sources or we can't take you seriously.
I can just as easily produce any number of historical Ottoman Empire maps that demonstrate, as reliably as your argument does, that Turkey, Bulgaria, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Macedonia, etc. etc. are "fake". Antandrus(talk)23:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. First see what your source is. This is nonsense of a Ukrainian nationalist. Sheer nonsense that has nothing to do with the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.56.204 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I don't want to argue further. Let all English Wikipedia see your shame. And remember, Tchaikovsky did not visit the nonexistent state of Ukraine. Little Russia is part of the Russian Empire.
Just claiming it must be nonsense and nationalism to claim Ukraine existed does not make it that way. Would you also claim Poland did not exist before 1918, Ireland before 1921 or India before 1947? Ukraine does have a different history to Moskow or Novgorod and was treated differently both by the tsars and the communists. Of course they all existed, just different. But that is to be expected. Every nation changes over time even Russia Wilhelm3 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Ukraine existed long before 1862. It appears on maps and in literature in the 17th and 18th centuries, for example the map of Ukraine by Cartographer Johann Baptist Homann circa 1720 (Title: Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldaviae, Minorisq., Tartariae Provinciis exhibita) 50.101.9.121 (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I agreee and I suspect this Wikipedia Article has been vandalised in the past. It used to have much more information about Tchaikovsky and Ukraine. When trying to find sources online I even found an interesting Article about this Edit WarWilhelm3 (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Pronunciation
At present the first sentence of the lead is clogged up with six different guides to pronouncing the composer's name. This is not very welcoming to visitors to te page. May I suggest we move most of the variations into a footnote. A comment here seems to me very much to the point. Tim riley talk23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The English IPA seems unnecessary because there is no uncertaintay or doubt about the pronunciation of "Tchaikovsky". The transliteration of Russian adds nothing, and the Russian pronunciation ought to be placed in a footnote, as suggested. IMO the Cyrillic script of his full name is worthwhile having in the 1st sentence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
MB, I suggest we leave this thread open for a week and then if nobody has expressed dissenting views I'll do as discussed above (unless you prefer to do it.) Does that seem sensible? Tim riley talk21:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Michael Bednarek and Tim riley, I concur that the inclusion of the Russian transliteration is pointless and have removed it. The English IPA may have a place however, as those not familiar with the composer would find a rather odd name to pronounce. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Regrettably the intro has declined severely in quality since this article was featured.
It is overly long and discursive, while also no longer containing a proper summary of basic details such as the composer's major works and styles or innovations.
The second paragraph in particular is full of dubious, subjective statements, with not a single citation to be seen. For instance, "The principles that governed melody, harmony and other fundamentals of Russian music ran completely counter to those that governed Western European music". This is too vague and smacks of over-exaggeration. Russian music still followed a tonal system, so no, it wasn't "completely counter" to Western melody and harmony. I'm sure it was counter *in some respects*, but which? And it's followed by, "and [this] caused personal antipathies that dented Tchaikovsky's self-confidence". What does "personal antipathies" mean here? Isn't this claim highly subjective? It sounds like original research. What is the evidence? And why is it important enough to be in the lead?
I recommend that the intro is reworked by an expert and the article marked as such. I think a lot of it should be removed, the second paragraph especially, or at least marked as dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denziloe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
This article does not meet the FA criteria due to being incoherent in places, especially the lead. buidhe10:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I don't think the article has fallen that short of the FA criteria. It seems like a lot of nonsense was added to the lead over the years since its promotion. Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, after rereading the lead, it seems fine to me. It actually rather elegantly describes the position Tchaikovsky was in and his life struggles. Are there some specific concerns you could point out? Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not goot at articulating prose issues, the phrasing of the article just seems difficult to understand and unnecessarily convoluted to me. I will put a pointer on FAR talk. buidhe00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Image needs a consensus
The lede image needs to be decided on so it stops randomly changing, this is after all, a featured article. The current image was put in place here with seemingly no request or explanation on the talk page. After scrolling through the history, 4 or 5 images have been put in and then taken out without much, if any discussion. This image was used for a while, but in my opinion the 1893 portrait by Nikolay Kuznetsov is by far the best choice. (And it seems to have been used on this article for a while as well) Tchaikovsky was active until his death and this painting being made in the last year of his life is representative of his 6th symphony, arguably his Magnum opus. Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky vs Petr Ilich Chaykovskiy
I reverted a move from Pyotr to Petr as it was done without discussion or stating a reason. As this article is an FA, I expect that the name was properly vetted by editors and that a move should be discussed first. Pikavoom (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Not worried in the slightest, however felt a note explaining this was necessary as I am 100% clueless here on the correct rendering the name and reverted solely on this being an FA. Cheers. Pikavoom (talk) 07:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is there no information box?
Beethoven, Bach and Handel have the information box. But then most of the other major composers do not. Like Brahms, Chopin, Mozart, Haydn, and Debussy. Since when are the great classical composers not worthy of an information box? Like why? Cj7557 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
But my question is when did simple convenience to the reader become obsolete? Is it not convenient to see the date of birth and death (and age of death) right there? Not to mention the college that they attend. Spouses and children. And a whole bunch of other things. Cj7557 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
@Cj7557: I am largely impartial to the conflict so I can't give you the answer you seek. The link I put above summarizes the opposition's side well. If other page watchers would like to chime in, they should feel free to. Aza24 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Consensus on infoboxes is by individual article. They are neither required nor prohibited. This issue was severe enough to lead to an arbitration case some years ago. To me, they are redundant with information in the lead, which is better nuanced, but lots of people disagree. Antandrus(talk)01:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Tchaikovsky did not want his voice to be recorded. Those who pretend to respect his music should also respect his will. Wikipedia does not do this in this case.
Wikipedia's will is to donate money to Wikipedia. I ignore this request just as Wikipedia ignores the will of Tchaikovsky.
--2003:D3:DF2C:4C0E:2809:2D29:9C76:642E (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose – The rest of the world knows his name as Pyotr Tchaikovsky – what's your evidence here for such a statement? I've never heard someone say "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" – I've only only "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" or just "Tchaikovsky". While not a flawless experiment, a simple google search of "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" vs "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" reveals 1.4 mil and 300k results respectively... seeing no reason to move. Aza24 (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
No opinion - but Google Ngramsshows "Peter Tchaikovsky" as consistently more popular than "Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky", and "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" as slightly more popular than "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" until 2007. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Support. It's easier to pronounce without the atavism, see Occam's razor. All the classical composers are mentioned with patronymic by Russians which doesn't mean much for the English-speaking world: Modest Petrovich, Nikolai Andreevich, Shostakovich and so on. Thus, it's just a leftover of Tchaikovsky's American popularity in the XIX century which led to a kind of cultural appropriation of his patronymic and not a dogma forever. BTW, it kind of implies all the other Russian composers are not as "respected" in the West (because the patronymic use meant "respect") just by not being as popular which is true but the approach is unreasonable because the whole patronymics-as-respect concept for Tchaikovsky is very archaic: "We, the public, love you so much that we accept all the additional issues because of your patronymic". It's ridiculous because he's a composer, not a Russian language teacher. There's another Tchaikovsky on Operabase but P. Tchaikovsky is good enough for them, Pyotr Tchaikovsky can be good enough for Wikipedia. Tintin-tintine (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Dębno coat of arms Before 2007, 'Pyotr Tchaikovsky' was more popular use that 'Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky'. These 13 years only prove the effect of Wikipedia. His first name won't change, the bold first three words "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" won't change. It's just about the URL (of his and his brother's name) and title. Moreover, his connection additional connection to Russia through his aggressive anti-user-friendly patronymic in the title is derogative for his international legacy. Like a woman in 1 Kings 3:26 the infamous "Mother Russia" keepers has to give up Tchaikovsky's patronymic here. BTW, according to Russian Wikipedia, his ancestors had been using the Polish COA of Lithuanian origin. The haters of Russia will make up whatever is possible — from racism to a lack of feminism — to deny his international genius. His brand is safer in Anglosphere with a more "Polish-Lithuanian" tag. Truth hurts. Tintin-tintine (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Suicide attempt
To add to this article: a mention of Tchaikovsky's wading into the freezing cold Moscow River in 1877, an unsuccessful suicide attempt, prompted by the failure of his marriage. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
How on earth can you have an ENTIRE page on Tchaikovsky and NOT MENTION the Nutcracker ballet??!!
Seriously folks - his MOST BELOVED music. Most people have never heard of the 1812 Overture. Please, someone, don't be so pretentious and snobbish that you completely ignore this huge gift to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.152.163 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Good point. The version of this article from 2009 as promoted to Featured Article mentions it, and other well-known compositions, in the 1st sentence. (Apparently, it's easier to mess with an FA's vital content than to rationalize its citation mechanism.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I request that an infobox should be added to accurately summarize the basics of his points. The previous consensus was years ago and there's clearly greater support for the inclusion of IBs in this article. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I personally think an infobox is very useful for summarizing simple, basic but yet important facts of the person, those which somebody may enter the article with the sole reason of reading them; birth, death, cause of death, parents, children (if has), spouse[s] (if has), notable works (or at least the most known ones), influences, signature, etc.
Many times I enter an article only for reading some of those facts, easy thing in Spanish wiki as there the infobox is available in composer's articles, but here it's a somewhat harder task. The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 01:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason for not including a infobox. A lot of information is known about Tchaikovsky so it would be valuable to summarize it all in one place. Roostery123 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a consensus to add an Infobox to the article. There were some great comments from those supporting both the status quo and adding the infobox including concerns that the infobox may become bloated. I encourage editors to work together to figure out what should be included in the infobox. Gusfriend (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the wake of my previous post last month regarding the addition of an infobox, I have decided to follow through @CurryTime7-24's advice and initiate an RFC regarding the question. Should we add an infobox to the article? Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Infoboxes are very convenient summaries of some key stats people are apt to be looking for, especially on the mobile version of the site (I don't think they work in the dedicated Android app for Wikipedia, though, just the mobile browser version). In this particular article, the lead sentence is a mishmash of Cyrillic and IPA, and the birth and death dates may not be visible until the 2nd to 4th lines (depending on viewport width and font size). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 06:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
These are all great arguments, just one factual correction: The Android Wikipedia app supports infoboxes too (it just puts them behind a "Quick facts" button, similar to how the mobile web version collapses sections). Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – There are two reasons why we have avoided info-boxes for composers (i) they add nothing useful from the readers' point of view and (ii) they make Wikipedia look amateurish. See the one forced through for Beethoven's article. What does it tell the reader about Beethoven?
His dates (which are in the lead)
That he was a composer (which anybody visiting the article will know)
The names of his parents (of interest to few, if any, readers).
What his signature looked like (ditto).
As to what is important about Beethoven – his works – the poor reader is asked to click away from the page to an entirely different article. That is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on i-boxes, which is to present key facts contained in the article. But if you are determined to ignore the policy and add an i-box for doctrinaire reasons ("Every article should have one, despite Wikipedia's agreed policy") so be it. – Tim riley talk08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Beethoven is of little concern here, so I won't comment on your bullets, but I oppose the wording "forced through" for a community consensus ("it appears to me that there is consensus that a short, well maintained infobox should be included"). Needless to say that I'd happily see more parameters filled for Beethoven, but at the time (2015), the miniature version was a possible compromise. What could be the compromise for Tchaikovsky? Quite generally: an infobox is only a collection of facts that some readers may want to find quickly at a certain position, not a sort of "summary" of a great person which would be impossible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes Add an infobox. I think Tim Riley's objections to the Beethoven infobox exmplify the feebleness of the "against" argument. Look at the first sentence of the lead here:
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky[n 1] (/tʃaɪˈkɒfski/ chy-KOF-skee;[2] Russian: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский,[n 2] IPA: [pʲɵtr‿ɨˈlʲjitɕ tɕɪjˈkofskʲɪj] (listen); 7 May 1840 – 6 November 1893)[n 3] was a Russian composer of the Romantic period.
I do not think anyone could regard this as a good way to start an article. It is trying to say "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) was a Russian composer of the Romantic period." But all the rest of the padding in the parentheses is precisely the sort of (reasonably important) information which would be much better expressed in tabular form, in an infobox. I don't know if TR's characterisation of "WP:POLICY" is accurate, but if it is it should be changed. Lots of things belong in an infobox because they do not naturally fall into a textual narrative, and are relevant factoids. For example the standard stuff about dates and the Russian calendar, the name in Cyrillic, the signature if available, these are all information which some readers will want to see. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose – In the spirit of the preceding !vote: It would be a disagreeable addition. But seriously: which "stats" would lead to a better understanding of Tchaikovsky? "Lots of things belong in an infobox because they do not naturally fall into a textual narrative, and are relevant factoids." That's exactly not how biographical infoboxes work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the previous vote/discussion? It may be useful here. Also if it was not relatively recent, consensus may have changed since then as noted in WP:CCC. BogLogs (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeaaaah.... I believe WikiProjects are explicitly called out as having no power in WP:RFC and should be the place of last resort. A lot has changed in 12 years. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, add an infobox. Called by bot. These provide a brief summary and should be standard for many articles including biographies. In response to Tim riley's reasonable objections, I think these provide a framework for thinking about how to improve infoboxes in the long term. My suggestion to Riley is to work on a style/writing guide for composer infoboxes that, for instance, doesn't merely list the wiki page about all the composer's works, but also lists some of their most famous and important works. That would seem daunting for incredible composers like Beethoven, Bach or Mozart but it's feasible. -Darouet (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that's a bad call. But we can develop consensus to figure out which things should and should not be included in the IB. Arguments which say "no IB" simply because of what could be included are short sighted. We can figure out what to include and what not to. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I'm personally agnostic about the infobox issue, although I do now typically include them whenever I create or expand articles on classical music. If this RfC moves in favor of adding an infobox to this Tchaikovsky article, I have a couple of concerns that I'm hoping this RfC can clear up. First, the infobox should not insist on listing "notable works". Everything Tchaikovsky composed is going to be "notable" in some way. Presenting only a selection of "notable works" in the infobox not only discourages further reading and investigation, but the choices of what is deemed "notable" can't help but be based on arbitrary personal preferences. Second, the infobox should stick to the facts and not be a space to display tantalizing rumors about Tchaikovsky's death, such as occurred awhile ago when an IP user added an infobox to this article that was briefly visible. The fact remains that despite rumors to the contrary, the only official cause of Tchaikovsky's death was from cholera. Of course, scholarly speculation to the contrary ought to be addressed within the article itself. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Presenting only a selection of "notable works" in the infobox not only discourages further reading and investigation, but the choices of what is deemed "notable" can't help but be based on arbitrary personal preferences This is a short-sighted, and, to my eyes, elitist argument. If there is no consensus in RSes which works are most notable, then yes, we should not include such a list. If there is a consensus in RSes (not users), then we should include a short list. Or avoid the list altogether and just link out to the "list of notable works" as suggested below. But that is not the only purpose of an infobox. Knowing the birth, death, locations, general style and movements, etc of a composer or any famous musician, is extremely valuable to naive readers. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes - infoboxes are extremely common for biographies across WP, and there's no reason for this particular subset of biographies to eschew them. Add one for consistency, if for no other reason. PianoDan (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
In fairness to the opposing side, part of their argument is that most composer articles don't have infoboxes, so the consistency argument may run the other direction, at least within this category. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I doubt the "most composers". Yes when you look at the featured articles that a small group of users has produced. Possibly no when you look at contemporary normal composers' articles. It depends completely on the taste of the author(s). Ipigott made a list for top composers last year when we discussed Sibelius. Recent FAs about composers, by other authors, tend to have one (Alan Bush, Witold Lutosławski, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji), and we have a FAC with an infobox. Most composers are also musicians, conductors, academic teachers. Why their composing would set them apart from other creative minds has escaped me so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I doubt the "most composers". Yes when you look at the featured articles that a small group of users has produced 100% this appears to be the case to me. An IB is valuable for this article. Denying one to avoid specific elements is such a short sighted solution, and many oppose editors here appear to be litigating old battles. Naive participants appear to support an IB and say "why not? Looks advantageous to me" — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I don't see why the article shouldn't have an infobox with basic information. That's what other similar articles have. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
"We must have one" is a completely different bar than "we SHOULD have one." Absolutely no one is arguing that an infobox is REQUIRED here, so that's a bit of a straw man. PianoDan (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
No one is arguing that consensus elsewhere supports an IB here. users are simply saying "if it helps, why not?" And I have seen no particularly effective "why not" arguments. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Infoboxes have become a normal and valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Wikipedia. The data backs up this conclusion.[1] Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. While there's always going to be a reluctance to adopt something new, infoboxes have become so common there would need to be an extraordinary reason to justify not including one in an article with significant content. There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB, but it's time to accept that infoboxes are a valuable tool for the end user. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes – An infobox would be really useful for an user who wants to quickly check just a little but yet important fact. The information in an infobox could include birth name (including its Cyrillic version), date and place of birth and death (which, as Imaginatorium said, its not straight at the start of the article), age when dead, cause of death (which could be in this case be written as "Cholera (sometimes disputed)" for avoiding speculation, and if somebody's interested in reading more about the topic, they can go to the linked article), parents, spouse, children (not the case), where studied, if had any notable teacher or any notable student, etc. A summary of simple facts somebody could be interested in checking without reading all the article. Notable works would also be interesting information to add, as in my personal case I sometimes look for the notable works of the composer just to see if I've heard something from it, but I understand the arguments against it, so I'm neutral about the inclusion of such information. --The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This is exactly what makes me worried about including an infobox in this article. Why should unproven speculation be mentioned in the infobox? What are the objective and universally agreed upon criteria that determine what a "notable work" is? — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
How it is different from including them in the lead, as many articles (including this one) do? If there's no "universally agreed upon criteria" then for sure it shouldn't be there either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Space, for one thing. Inclusion of "notable works" in the infobox would encourage reducing Tchaikovsky down to a small string of "hits" with no objective and verifiable criteria. If you want to remove the works mentioned in the lead as well, I would support it. A number of composer articles—such as those for Dmitri Shostakovich and Johannes Brahms—only mention in a general way genres or ensembles that their subjects composed for. (The former mentions "Babi Yar" not to point out its "notability," but to illustrate an example of CPSU intervention.) CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The unproven speculation of Tchaikovsky's death could be useful for showing that there are certain doubts about his death by some scholarships, but still keeping the official cause of death (hence, the "sometimes disputed" between parenthesis, leading to an article about the topic if the reader is interested in reading more about that). About the notable works, I said in my original statement "[...] but I understand the arguments against it [adding notable works], so I'm neutral about the inclusion of such information". Despite I would like a list of notable works, I perfectly understand that it would not be objective, so I don't support it nor reject it. However, I really support the implementation of an infobox in the article. --The Typos Checker (fixed typos) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
If an infobox is added after this RFC, "notable works" will probably not be listed in the infobox regardless. {{Infobox classical composer}} includes this instruction after the notable works parameter: "Link to "List of works" subarticle here. Do not list individual pieces", and indeed no classical composers w/ infoboxes (that I know of) list individual pieces. Aza24 (talk)23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an excellent solution to the dispute over which works would be included. A list in a separate article is a great place to link. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Just for clarification: we had a discussion yesterday about composers' lists of composition, and they should appear in infoboxes not as "notable works", but simply as "works". A well-written list will offer an overview in its lead, pointing at specific pieces or genres where a composer left notable works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
(Summoned via bot)Yes. An infobox helps readers to more quickly access key information about the article's subject. By now, we also have evidence for this from peer-reviewed academic research. Agreed that one still needs to carefully decide which facts to include, but the same is true for the lead section and really any part of an article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Infoboxes are almost always welcome in my opinion, as they offer handy and clear information that readers might need at a glance. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The infobox which has been added contains no information which is not present in the opening of the lead. No one has demonstrated a need for this feature. Energy would be better spent in improving the article which (esepecially in its Music section) seesm rather mediocre. --Smerus (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Then you can spend that energy doing it. Or did you forget that everyone here is a volunteer who decides what to spend their time editing? Whenever I see a comment like this I wonder if those people feel likes there's some obligation that every contributor has that they do, in fact, not have in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes because infoboxes are expected in biographies and the issue will always come up until one is finally added. Readers don’t care about the esoteric reasoning of the anti-infobox camp, which typically argues infoboxes are some form of “dumbing down” or they make readers not appreciate the “real” article. Dronebogus (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
As countless other biographical articles without infoboxes demonstrate, nothing is "expected" other than an informative article. If an infobox can help with that, great. — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Numerous biographies (including this one) have lasted for many years without an infobox, and there are no good reasons shown above to change the consensus. What was included in the most recent addition were the dates (contentious, given his dates were recorded as 25 April 1840 – 25 October 1893 in the old date system). Also included is a link for his works to take readers away to a different page. WP's policy on IBs, is to present key facts contained in the article. A link to another page is a breach of those guidelines.
(I'm not sure it was a good idea for the editor that wanted an IB enough to open the RFC, then also closed it and added an IB - that's a long way from best practice for how to deal with a contentious issue. I won't remove the box, but the article should be returned to the STATUS QUO while the RFC continues. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Because IBs are relatively useless, dumbed down trivia boxes that contain a couple of factoids that don't aid understanding. The fact that people add them without considering them fully is a sad situation. And it's not just composers. Of all the GAs and FAs I wrote or co-wrote. I suppose about 50% had a box and 50% didn't. They were only inclded when they provided a benefit to readers, not just because 'other articles also have them'. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7183:2FED:A175:2EA1 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
“They’re expected” isn’t an argument for consistency. It’s an argument for the reader experience. We believe it benefits, you believe it does not. It seems you are quite opinionated about infoboxes, whereas naive editors to this article appear quite supportive of the idea. Which do you think better represents the perspective of our readers? — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
This is WP:TALKOFFTOPIC for this discussion. I got to this discussion through the participation of other editors, nothing to do with an anonymous IP whose address changes often enough it would be too difficult to track anyway. It's much more effective to address the content of others' arguments, not who is making them. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The main/regular editors should decide, not drive-bys This flies in the face of the entire point of RFCs, to establish a robust consensus provided by more input from uninvolved editors. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes add the infobox. Great way to summarize the most important and DUE info about this person. Edit (05:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)): I would prefer an infobox that had just simple and basic info such as: name, image, life dates, occupation, list of works, signature. per AirshipJungleman29 below. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I actually got to this discussion c/o User:Dronebogus and User:SMcCandlish's involvement, both of whom I respect, even if I occasionally disagree with them. In this case, I think we agree, but I'm here only because I usually find discussions they participate in interesting. In general, this comment is WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and should not be handled here, it should be handled on user talk. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
It's a dynamic IP address (I can't change that), but they were harassing on one of the other user talk pages. They have also stalked me to an article I have previously taken to FA. It's rather threatening and chilling to be followed around like this. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Additional Note - This IP editor (formally known as SchroCat) has grown increasingly[2] hostile[3] towards editors who are arguing in good faith. This editor needs to move away from WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. Nemov (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That is untrue (and you have duplicated a link to the same posting). I am being stalked by an editor who has harassed me and has tried to gaslight me. I doubt good faith in the actions of this one individual, not of others (so "towards editors" is not true). I am not using any battleground tactics, but I will not hesitate to point out stalking and harassment by that one editor. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:BD00:A400:8804:F9AC (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes (Summoned by bot) because it's convenient to have at-a-glance information top right, where I'm used to seeing it. I would have a slight preference for a {{Tchaikovsky sidebar}} to be created and to occupy that position, but the fact that we already have a {{Tchaikovsky}} nav template at the bottom will probably discourage creation of a sidebar, although I think it would still be useful. As long as we don't have a sidebar, I'm in favor of the Infobox, which doesn't have nearly as much information, but is better than nothing, and is useful to the reader, to help engage with the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
No – the main source of Wikipedia's readers is from mobile devices. In the mobile version, infoboxes and lead paragraphs compete directly with each other for vertical screen space. This means that avoiding WP:CLUTTER and redundancy is important for all the content that appears at the beginning of the article. The individuals who write and maintain the article are the one's best qualified to determine how best to summarize the article in this limited mobile screen space. In this case, the best approach is to use only an image rather than the larger footprint of an infobox in the lead. Guest2625 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)--
Suggest no info box (invited by the bot) Not useful in this case, contains little or no useful info in this case. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. So tiresome to repeat the same for years: infoboxes bring nothing but needless clutter and edit warring. Not an improvement at all. Ghirla-трёп-17:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I used to be quite opposed to IBs, but now am indifferent or even slightly supportive of the idea. That said, I think it silly to implement them on a piecemeal basis, since the people who will be maintaining them are the active editing crew at WP:CM. So I still think it should be decided centrally at the most relevant project and not on individual composer pages. Eusebeus (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be decided centrally at the village pump, because the whole reason we’re here is because the relevant project decided unilaterally that composers can’t have infoboxes. Projects have zero authority and I want it to stay that way; pretending they do is just a recipe for balkanizing Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Include/yes/support Infobox. People are used to IBs, especially on mobile editions of Wikipedia. They've become arguably one of the most iconic, if not taken for granted, additions of the project, as they balance prose with data which people may want. I find that many of the arguments against infobox inclusion are based on either fearmongering or insufficiently demonstrating that biographical Wikipedia should be prose only, not including any data (or in other words, dictating how people should read a "free" encyclopedia, and is that free at all if you have to read it a certain way?). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Protocol
I have no opinion on the matter at hand. The initiator of the RFC, Knightoftheswords281, has now twice closed this discussion and added an infobox themselves. I consider this a massive breach of protocol. While involved editors may close RFCs for obvious consensus and non-contentious discussions, I consider this neither. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and I highly recommend they wait for someone else to close this when it is deemed appropriate. Aza24 (talk)22:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
You're basically right, although the situation is a bit muddled, partly due to a misinterpretation of Rfc terminology, I believe. The OP did close the discussion, but did not attempt to evaluate it or leave an assessment of consensus. Nevertheless, they shouldn't have closed it. However, point 1 of WP:RFC § Reasons and ways to end RFCs allows the poster to withdraw an Rfc by removing the Rfc tag, which leaves the original dispute undecided, and open. In this case, the discussion is neither closed, nor evaluated, and may simply continue on in the same section, without expectation of a formal assessment by a closer. That's not what happened here, and you were right to undo the close, and to undo inclusion of the Infobox at the article.
Knightoftheswords281, you can neither close, nor assess this Rfc yourself, once you have set it in motion. You could withdraw it, in theory, although in its current state, that will not give you the right to add an Infobox to the article, so you will have achieved nothing. My recommendation at this point, is to let the Rfc run its course, accept whatever the outcome is, and move on. If by chance the Rfc goes your way, the gracious thing to do would be to allow others to add the Infobox instead of you, but that is not a requirement. Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What should be included?
From the discussion above, I see the following parameters repeated several times:
I think you could start with the ones listed, and the image, of course. I don't need more, and we can keep discussing whether to add or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Your list seems tip-top to me. Other editors might insist on including cause of death, in which case only the official cause ought to be displayed. Conspiracy theorists will disagree with me, but anything that is not cholera is speculation, however educated some theorists may be. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Why should his parents' names be included? Are they notable? I think the cause of his death is sufficiently complicated/disputed to defy a summary in an infobox. Which Cyrillic script should be used in the infobox? What would a reader looking for a quick summary of his life gain from his signature? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that's why I didn't include the parents' names in this list.
Agreed that's why I didn't include the cause of death in this list.
Re: cyrillic script, I would start that discussion with "Whichever script was most commonly used in contemporary life for Tchaikovsky." But that's just my opening salvo.
We already have his signature at the top, including it would simply maintain that status quo.
Re signature: The status quo doesn't mean the article is perfect, or all its elements are even desirable. The signature was added on 8 September 2013, four years after the article's promotion to FA, and without any discussion. Again: what's its point? More on status quo, to illustrate my point: is a picture of the Imperial School of Jurisprudence needed? Do readers need to be shown what an ascending sequence of notes looks and sounds like? Couldn't the citation system be updated to current standards? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Consensus is about changing things as little as possible while satisfying the greatest plurality of participants/multiplicity of viewpoints/etc. I'm not sure what benefit these WHATABOUT arguments have to achieving consensus here. I appreciate your input (and agree in many ways), but I'm not sure your arguments are getting across to me in the way you intend, meaning I'm not sure how your specific advice can be incorporated here? to this infobox? Happy to incorporate any and all input, as always. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)12:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Shibbolethink, I am as you know aginst infoboxes in general. But if we are going to have one, can you comment on these two points:
1) Why does the present infobox omit the moust important thing about T., that he was a composer?
2) What on earth is the ponit of including his sginature? This gives no vital information about him (or idneed, in my opinon, any information at all), and simply takes up space.
Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, please remove the signature. It just seems to be some sort of cargo cult thing on biographies, even ones without infoboxes. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
How would you include it? There was quite a bit of disagreement above, given that Tchaikovsky was also a civil servant, musician, etc. See @Gerda Arendt's comment: Most composers are also musicians, conductors, academic teachers. and @Tim riley comments re: Beethoven's Infobox: What does it tell the reader about Beethoven?... That he was a composer (which anybody visiting the article will know) I'm not personally opposed to (and indeed, I would support) including an "occupation" parameter, which I would fill as "Composer, civil servant". To answer Riley and Gerda, I think this parameter is uniquely valuable for Tchaikovsky as it tells us he was a civil servant in addition to his composition career, and it tells us the 2 most notable occupations in Tchaikovsky's life. Without good RSes to support, I wouldn't want to add anything else to that list. I didn't include the parameter because I didn't see consensus for its inclusion in the RFC, and no one suggested it in this section until now. It's overall been a good idea to keep as few parameters in there as possible, strictly what we have consensus for.
Personally I think the signature is interesting (comparing them between pages, seeing the different scrawls, handwriting over time and in different cultures). But if a consensus against its inclusion develops I'm happy to remove it (and of course anyone could in such an instance). I see very little downside other than aesthetics for a subset of users who seem to really hate the sigs.
All that said, I'm happy to swap signature for occupation. I don't feel strongly about either thing, but I do feel strongly about making sure we have a consensus for such a change given how contentious the IB has been in the past few weeks. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Today, we could look at Witold Lutosławski. Education, occupation, list of compositions, list of awards (he has one). We could include occupations for Tchaikovsky as well; according to the article he was also wanted as a conductor, but I can't tell if enough to warrant mentioning. I am neutral to signatures. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Consensus infobox version for implementation
In the absence of significant pushback, here is the version I'm going to implement (see page, removed for inclusion count reasons)). Feel free to register your concerns/complaints/tweaks here. As I am extremely new to infoboxes in general (and not well versed in their usage), I beg your patience with any technical or conventional errors! I am not quite sure how to implement the cyrillic name, so I put it under the "native_name" parameter from Template:Infobox person. We could also use "birth_name" as I had in this diff. I used the cyrillic from This UC Santa Barbara page but I am open to whatever and whichever cyrillic format/script/parameter usage has consensus.— Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
When you implement it, please remove it here, or the inclusion count gets wrong. We may consider saying occupation, which was not only composer, but also a conductor, and director of the Moscow branch of the Russian Musical Society. - I find his signature interesting, regarding the question of how to render his name in English. I added the Russian language (template) to his native name. I made the country where he was born Russian Empire, as in the article. I also reduced the "shouting" in the attention message. It will always be just one editor reading it ;) - I suggest to drop in the message "Your changes to this infobox may be immediately reverted if they have not received consensus." - We could - slowly, slowly - get into a habit of treating infoboxes just like other content: it's just normal to face a revert for a bold edit, and then discuss and find consensus. My goal for 2023. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Excellent edits, thank you, I went ahead and removed that sentence from the commented-out notice because I completely agree. We need to ratchet down the tension about infoboxes and just treat them in general like any other aspect of the page, and BRD isn't specific to them, lol! — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This works for me. Hopefully the recent progress on this article and a few others will start limiting the RfCs we see on this issue. Finding a path forward is more productive than the sometimes contentious nature of this topic in the past. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I made a small adjustment by removing the accent marks from his native name. Russian does not typically use accent marks, except to clarify pronunciation. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
In fact I would say that the romanisation is virtually always "tch..."; I have never seen the composer's name spelt Chaikovsky in any English language publication. Sbishop (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The combination tch- in initial position is unknown in English and very rare in other languages. The composer's name was long spelt in the German way, as Tschaikowsky. Then, someone decided we anglophones could do without teutonic influences, and changed the w to v, and the Tsch to Tch. But why not plain Ch? I can only assume it was to distinguish it from the /x/ sound, usually spelt as ch (as in loch, l'chaim, etc). But it solved a non-existent problem; nobody ever said "Khaikovsky". Whatever, "Tchaikovsky" is here to stay. We also have Tcherepnin et a few al. But not Tchekhov, at least not anymore. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
.jpg%7Cfamous){kind=link}