Talk:Joseph Haydn

Infobox

Joseph Haydn
Portrait by Thomas Hardy, 1791
Born	Rohrau
Baptized	31 March 1732 (1732-03-31)
Died	31 May 1809(1809-05-31) (aged 77) Vienna
Works	List of compositions
Relatives	Michael Haydn (brother)

A user added an infobox, it was reverted citing archive 1 of this talk page. I restored it, with amendments, edit summary: "I looked at the archive, it runs to 2016, while an RfC for Mozart was in 2023. It was reverted. I believe the article about Haydn would profit from at-a-glance information, as Beethoven and Mozart. What do others think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Having read the article and the many notes within, here are my thoughts.

• I see the Mozart RfC as a WP:LOCALCON where the discussion was focused on that specific article, and of course infoboxes are neither required or not required; local consensus defines this.
• The discussion from 2006, is still germane (namely, the relevance of his birthplace).
• There is the murky issue of his baptism versus his birth date, which of course is somewhere around his baptism date. The note in the lede better explains it. I think it is an oversimplification to have the baptism date in the infobox as it alludes to the issue as being settled.
• Haydn was a very prolific composer, and I think the List of Compositions is an oversimplification; the See Also section has 8(!) lists of his works, categorized by type. This points the reader to a more relevant subset of his works depending on their interests. And honestly, looking through the List of Compositions page, it's a mess. It really is too long to navigate comfortably but that's another discussion.

This leads me to Oppose. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to work on Requiem (Verdi) and promised work on a bio, so short:

1. Most encyclopedias give places of birth and death as a standard, and our our MoS seems to expect them in the infobox, regardless of relevance.
2. When a baptism date is given, it indicates that the date of birth is unclear.
3. The lead of the list of compositions gives an overview. You - we - could write a better overview, but it's a service for those more interested in what he composed than names such as (from the lead) "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String quartet", and the "wealthy Esterházy family" and his friendships. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In view of the long-standing dispute in this project over the inclusion of infoboxes in composer articles, I became curious as to how other projects handled the issue. A search for the word "infobox" on talk pages of Wikipedia articles turned up 466,950 instances where an article infobox was discussed. A cursory review of these discussions clarified the following things:

- Most of the discussions were about technical issues regarding the infobox. For example, there was a discussion whether the "Pseudoscience" infobox was appropriate for the article on Pseudoscience (thank you Godel).

- Some of the discussions were substantive, and sometimes quite rancorous. For example, there was a pretty bitter argument over whether Assyrians should be counted as Serbs in the Serbs article.

- In none of the discussions (classical music project articles excepted) was there a suggestion to remove an infobox from an article for any reason.

The opposition to the use of infoboxes in composer articles makes our project unique - and, to my mind, a little ridiculous - in the Wikipedia community. Infoboxes have become a universal standard of biographical articles in Wikipedia. It is true that the style manual states that the decision whether or not to include an infobox is a matter for discussion at each article. But it is also clear that this rule is intended for articles where the utility or content of an infobox is unclear (for example Timecode).

This is why I am supporting restoration of the infobox to the article. Ravpapa (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think an infobox would be useful. The list of compositioins page needs work certainly but that doesn't mean we remove the box, simply that we actually work on the page List of compositions by Joseph Haydn. I know the Composers group never liked the boxes but they are here to stay now. They do add a visual resume of the article even in the basic format used by us! — Iadmc♫^talk  19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore infobox — Iadmc♫^talk  19:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps add parents, brother and spouse as with Mozart— Iadmc♫^talk  19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This comment exemplifies an argument against restoration - a "basic format" addition inevitably attracts bloat, "regardless of relevance". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(bloat? inevitably?) If relatives were added we could discuss. I would not add them here as not relevant to Haydn's music, different from Mozart who wrote music for his wife's voice. Nobody added relatives to Schönberg, nor anything else not relevant, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. But Michael Haydn is relevent. — Iadmc♫^talk  21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I added him to the suggestion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore- infoboxes do provide helpful at-a-glance info, and I frequently refer to them before anything else when using Wikipedia's mobile app. I would also support having an hlist for the various composition articles under the "works" parameter (like ) but I realize that would get too big quickly. For Rohrau, I'd put Austria next to it to be more informative. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The mobile app is a good point actually. And yes "Rohrau, Austria" would help. Assuming it was Austria then... — Iadmc♫^talk  11:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary, if Nikkimaria permits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Would his signature fit in too? That's all I suggest though. — Iadmc♫^talk  20:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please God, no! How is that key information? Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I recently returned to sporadic editing of the Wikipedia, after a hiatus of seven or eight years. I was surprised - pleasantly or not - to find that nothing had changed in the two thirds of a decade absence. Still arguing about the same old stuff. Well, as for this infobox thing, I have a suggestion - let's make the infobox, but, since there are those who oppose infoboxes in composer articles, let's put it somewhere else - say, the article on Stewart Rahr, for example. Readers looking for information on Mr. Rahr might be pleasantly surprised to see Haydn's infobox there; their curiosity might be piqued, and they might click on the link, read about Haydn, and listen to his music. They might be enchanted, and their lives changed. Then the infobox would have served a meaningful purpose, for sure. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant Ravpapa! Genius idea... I think you know the problem. Anyway, do you think Haydn should have on like Mozart? Or a host of other composers now, in fact. I've come round to quite liking them when not too huge. — Iadmc♫^talk  20:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought: if Joseph gets a box so should his brother Michael Haydn — Iadmc♫^talk  09:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

3 for and 1 against (plus a funny comment by Ravpapa) suggests we have consensus here to restore the infobox. It's been a while since the idea was mooted by Gerda Arendt — Iadmc♫^talk  20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think unfortunately that both your math and your conclusions are faulty, per WP:CON - what matters is the discussion rather the counting of bolds. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

3 for (me, Gerda, and MyCat), 2 against (Nikki and Jip) is less clear to be fair. Have I missed anyone? Anyway, more discussion is welcome — Iadmc♫^talk  03:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am for Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ravpapa! 4 for, then. More discussion perhaps, though as Nikkimaria says — Iadmc♫^talk  08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. per Jip Orlando's excellent summary. At the moment the example box is certainly short and basic (thus greatly reducing its actual utility), but how long would it stay like that? And already it verges on being misleading, both on the birth date and the compositions. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  So, if it were kept basic, "thus greatly reducing its actual utility", you'd oppose; if it were to be expanded, you'd oppose. Are there any circumstances in which you'd not oppose? I take your and Jip Orlando's point about the birth/baptism date and and list of compositions but those issues are also issues for the article as a whole. — Iadmc♫^talk  03:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, if the main editors who actually wrote and maintain the article wanted it, rather than the usual bunch of drive-bys (which includes myself). Has anyone contributing here ever edited the text in any substantive way? I very much doubt it. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  We can only tell how long it will stay if we try it. Nothing bad happened to Beethoven and Mozart. It can certainly be longer. How can it be misleading regarding the birth date when none is given, and what do you find misleading about the compositions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Mozart box is quite new, & there was drastic cruft reduction before it was accepted. I don't know about Beethoven, but I'm not sure I want take your word for it, frankly. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC for Beethoven was closed on 14 May 2015 by one of the arbs who wrote arbinfobox, concluding "... it appears to me that there is consensus that a short, well maintained infobox should be included, with effort to ensure that secondary information is not included in the infobox". That could have put the matter to peace, no? Not just for Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think he's talking about the complications surrounding the list of compositions and the template at the bottom further listing compositions in groups. The birth/baptism thing is not going to be resolved ever. However, these are things that are independent of the infobox and do really need to be sorted out if possible. The infobox is a separate issue to be considered on its own merits — Iadmc♫^talk  14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  If they are in the infobox, and making it misleading or inaccurate, as very often happens, they are not "independent" at all. This was exactly the issue over the Titian row in the House of Commons some years ago - as I recall Gordon Brown when Prime Minister took the wrong birth date from the infobox, without checking the text, & stated Titian's age using it in a speech. The text explained how the date was unknown. 4 day row in the papers. Infobox classic. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  That was inaccurate information which is indeed what I'm talking about. The list of compostions is a separate article altogether but is the correct target; therefore, the infobox can't be said to be misleading or wrong, simply the target it points to (if it even is: I looked at it and it seems fine). The Baptism date is the best we know and therefore correct as best as can be. Again no misleading there. Anyway these are editorial questions. We are debating the inclusion of the infobox in the first place: it can be cleaned up as we go along (though it would be better to get it right the first time). — Iadmc♫^talk  16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Moreover, the dates were changed by someone in the cabinet office according to the Guardian. That's vandalism, and not what we are talking about — Iadmc♫^talk  16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or rather someone in the Tory HQ to make Brown look stupid... — Iadmc♫^talk  16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  No, they were changed in the course of the row, but before the row the infobox was wrong, and the text right. Look at the page history. Changing the infobox to be correct is not of course vandalism at all. You should know by now that what the Guardian says about WP is never accurate. More generally, the prevalence of inaccuracy in infoboxes is one of the strongest arguments against infoboxes. It's certainly no good expecting the drive-by box fans to watch them afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  An article can be inaccurate, misleading, wrong etc. No reason not to have an article! Similarly, no reason not to have an infobox just because it can be wrong etc. — Iadmc♫^talk  17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Any more thoughts on this? Is there any consensus either way? My feeling is that we leave the article as it is for now and move on. — Iadmc♫^talk  19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Restore. I strongly believe in infoboxes, it provides information that can be quickly gatherd and organized. Thats what Wikipedia needs, there is a lot of information and the most important in one box. Wcamp9 (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  I OPPOSE. There is nothing wrong with the article as is. I do not think anything less an open conversation that is months-old shows a need for adding an infobox to an article that has no need for it. Barbarbarty (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)