Talk:Don Carlos: Difference between revisions

Opera B‑class

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

France B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

I propose that Template:Infobox opera be removed and replaced with Template:Verdi operas. Our traditional 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. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restoration as a long-term contributor to this article dating back to 2005. Once again this infobox is problematic with regard to genre. Gerda Arendt should have proposed the infobox here first before taking any action, as she knows perfectly well the use of this particular box is controversial and prone to inaccuracy. --Kleinzach 02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is a similar WP:POINT distraction at Rigoletto. --Kleinzach 02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the composer navbox is redundant? There's a more complete navbox for the composer at the bottom of the opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree that the top right composer navbox is redundant. It has long been supported by a strong consensus. --Kleinzach 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the infobox: feel free to change it. If the genre is not correct, just drop it or change to Grand Opera. - No, I don't know "perfectly well" that "this particular box" is controversial, - it's an option of project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An option of project opera? Whose option? Andy Mabbett's? Yours? --Kleinzach 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update, quote: "Following discussions here last March ..., this is been under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation ... As this discussion has been open for over two weeks with some reservations but without any major objections to making this box available as an option for articles on individual operas, I've now gone ahead and added it to the list of templates on the main project page and to the Article Guide. Hopefully, this will not prove to be the end of civilization as we know it, although you never know ;). Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)." end of quote --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on Wikipedia:QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. --Kleinzach 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole. Kleinzach 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your view. - I believe that an infobox supplying only a quick date and location of a topic is already helpful, everything else is optional. - "Genre": I changed the field to "Description" for now, awaiting further discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Description" is actually worse, IMO, because it's very vague: it could mean something similar to "genre", or it could be a plot description, or it could be....etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant to be permanent, but better be too general until consensus, suggestions welcome on the template talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX:When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose . . . . Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. In other words, long multi-field boxes are discouraged. Kleinzach 07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the material you quote doesn't support your closing assertion (indeed, you appear to be scrabbling around for support for your position and finding nothing substantial), the inbox in question is not a "long multi-field box". Further, the quoted material does not support your earlier "summarise the article" assertion (emphasis in original) either, because it says (my emphasis) "summarize key facts in the article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox in the upper right does not good whatsoever. PumpkinSky talk 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to one of the removals of this infobox, it's "still under development". Interesting, I thought that was true for every line on Wikipedia, and development normally happens in article space where more people can see it. But let's make an exception and develop right her, as an exercise. What do you think is missing or wrong? If it's on this opera, discuss here, if it's the template, on the template talk. Should we have for example a second infobox for its Italian version? (as we have two, for German and English publication, of works of Kafka) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this one. PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This infobox shouldn't be placed here in talk space. Gerda Arendt previously agreed not to use this tactic following the controversy at Talk:Richard Wagner. If the box is going to be redeveloped, this is not the place. --Kleinzach 21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]