User talk:Nemov/Archives/2022/December

Precious

braves

Thank you for quality articles such as Atlanta Braves tomahawk chop and name controversy and CoolToday Park, for taking care of articles including Ron DeSantis, for requesting sources, for determination and patience: "making information easier to consume is the only priority" - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2779 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy note: Closure of discussion on Talk:Laurence Olivier

Hello. This is a courtesy note regarding your request for closure that you posted on Wikipedia:Closure requests. I have closed the discussion here. Happy editing! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and close. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

November songs

thank you for constructive comments there, - I referred to the RfC in my arbcand questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the discussion through the RfC notice and there's a similar one going on at Talk:Maddie_Ziegler#RFC_on_Infoboxes_(continuation_from_discussion_above). The frustrating part is that many of the same people who were fighting the infobox on the Laurence Olivier article are doing the same thing article by article. I brought up the subject of having a universal rule for WP:BLP, but I"m not sure there's support or interest in the idea. That makes sense to me since this simple navigation tool shouldn't be an issue.

So this presents a problem. That vocal minority is just going to stonewall infoboxes unless other editors go through a painstaking RfC process every time. I think I'm tapping out because it's not worth the effort and then when the infobox is ultimately approved the vocal minority will fight every single change to the infobox.

It's probably just easier to let it go and this will eventually work itself out as infoboxes become a standard part of most articles. Nemov (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I was frustrated over this back in 2016 (Pierre Boulez), but I think - see answers to my questions - that finally there may be a better solution than a new battle every article - which is what arbitration called for in 2013. I asked 12 candidates, and 11 had no better idea (the 12th never responded), but that can't be a good way to peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think biographies should have infoboxes, and think this should be standardized, because it’s exceedingly tedious having to argue against the same 4 users on the same 4 talk pages to get this done. Dronebogus (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should be brought up at WP:BIO? The issue is cluttering up RfC because those opposed will not WP:DROPTHESTICK. I'd expect this kind of opposition in articles involving religion or politics. I never thought I'd encounter such resistance to an infobox. Nemov (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be brought up there. Dronebogus (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You may want to try WT:Composers where the socalled 2010 consensus was found. I tried in 2016 (Pierre Boulez), but was frustrated enough to leave the field (check the archives). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting a template, but that's already there, {{infobox classical composer}}. I never use it, because {{infobox person}} is broader, and most composers can't live on the money they make composing but are musicians, conductors, teachers, writers - whatever. Why Nikolaus Harnoncourt has a fine infobox, but Pierre Boulez none, although both conducted and were leaders of movements in music (and died at the same time), is one of the mysteries about the infoboxes conflict that has remained unresolved in the 10 years I have watched it. The key question to the project would be if the 2010 "consensus" is still valid, and in its consequence the placement of the hidden warning in composers' articles: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll have to work that out. I'll see if there's any interest. Nemov (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Check user?

A part of me still thinks that the IP(s) might be someone pretending to be SchroCat. But, if it really is him? then, he's lost my support. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the content he was discussing I have no reason to believe it's a different user. He's been super active on a few articles under discussion and it's been super confusing for users coming in who don't know who it is and then add the hostility angle and it's a huge headache. Nemov (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I remember Stanley Kubrick in 2015, when I was taken to AE (arbitration enforcement) because I dared to ask the question if [really] the principal editors should decide about infobox or not. I was told not to do it again. The whole discussion is worth reading, but for users with little time, the summary of the close should do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

All that stuff is over my head. This really isn't a content dispute situation it's an editor conduct problem. Nemov (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I asked the future arbitrators, and they saw (almost) nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree there isn't a war. I know it was heated in the past, but aside from a few editors with strong opinions progress is being made via RfCs. Maybe a few of the entrenched debaters will see thing writing on the wall. Nemov (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you see the Sibelius discussion, where I asked how many more RfCs we'll need (which was almost exactly a year ago). Sorry if repetition, - my memory ... and then past midnight ;) - It was with a Sibelius composition that I illustrated hopes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)