Talk:Maurice Ravel

Template:Vital article

Infobox, revisted

I came to this page searching for some basic biographical information about Ravel - nationality, year of birth, year and cause of death, etc. - and was surprised to see that there is no infobox. I see that there has previously been shockingly heated debate around this question, so I wanted to ask the talk page before simply adding one. I see no reason not to add an infobox to this page, as it would simply make certain information easily accessible in the style and format that is typical of wikipedia biographies. But don't want my head to get bitten off for acting on that opinion... thoughts? Lamacha9617 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Info-boxes are useful when they give the visitor to the page a quick overview: a cricketer's statistics, a politician's posts, an animal's taxonomy, a place's geographical details and so forth. But for composers they cannot give the reader any useful overview. Have a look at composer articles where there are info-boxes: e.g. Robert Schumann: the one there tells us the name of his nine children and nothing whatever about his music. What could be added to tell people about his music? That he wrote some. What would we include? What criteria would be applied to the choice? The lead mentions some (not all) of RS's best-known works. We'd look pretty silly repeating them immediately alongside in the info-box. What is the best-known thing about Schumann apart from his music? That he went mad. Do we put that in the info-box? The musical artist info-box is designed for people in popular music: "label", "genre", "associated acts", "website". The works of classical composers do not lend themselves to being summarised in a few words, a fact realised by whoever added the staggeringly unhelpful info-box to Beethoven's article, which tells the reader his place and date of birth and death and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click into a different article altogether, where he/she is confronted with a list of 148 compositions, with no indication of which are the most important. That is frankly an insult to our readers. The info-box guideline says that i-bs are "'at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts'". What facts about Ravel could we usefully put in an i-b? No, let us give a pithy overview of a composer's life and works in the lead section and not pretend we can adequately summarise them in an info-box. Tim riley talk 17:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I also see no harm in adding an infobox like Lamacha9617, especially for readers who are just quickly gleaning the article for certain stats such as date and location of birth and death, age at death, birthplace, alma mater, signature, which era of classical music, etc. as I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article introduction or article itself be replaced by an infobox.

In my opinion, having infoboxes helps save time for readers, especially younger ones or those of non-musical backgrounds who don't have the time to read through the entire article in one sitting and just wanted to know one or two small things about the biography. For example, someone who just wanted to know Ravel's age at death without having to scroll all the way to the end just to find out. I do strongly believe in accessibility for all readers and that Wikipedia articles should be written for general readers per WP:TECHNICAL; however, I won't challenge the status quo if it has already been decided that Ravel won't be getting an infobox. Respectfully, WuTang94 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Which concertos

…only four of his works were conceived as concert works for symphony orchestra: Rapsodie espagnole, La valse and the two piano concertos. All the other orchestral works were written either for the stage, as in Daphnis et Chloé, or as a reworking of piano pieces…

There have been reversions of the descriptive 'piano', with the edit summary "We must not imply falsely that there are other concertos: that is why we chose the wording, approved at FAC". That concern strikes me as misplaced; is there actually previous discussion? Sparafucil (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the numerous previous mentions of the piano concertos and conspicuous absence of mention of any non-existent concertos for other instruments is something of a hint. You seem to be on a mission of some sort, but I'm blest if I can see what it is. Tim riley talk 21:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought after another rereading: other editors who watch the article may have views, but for my own part, if it gives you pleasure, Sparafucil, to add "piano" I shall not demur. I don't think it is v. helpful to the reader but nor, methinks, though repetitive, is it unhelpful. Tim riley talk 23:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Even more pleasure to have worked things out with you: some readers may be jumping straight to the #Orchestral works section. I of course came to this from my watchlist changes, with even less context than that! Sparafucil (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Works dedicated to Ravel

The recent extensive addition seems to me to unbalance the article. I suggest we hive it off to a separate article, with a one-sentence mention in and a link from the main article. Thoughts invited on this suggestion. Tim riley talk 21:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)