Jump to content

Talk:The Rite of Spring: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
problems of uniformity
Line 265: Line 265:
:Presumably, she says that says that because Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not decide things by votes. You'll notice that I referred at the head of this section, to "suggested content". It is precisely so that such matters can be thrashed out that I stated this discussion. Taking the dates as an example, I can see no reference in the article body to any music being written before 1911; if it is there, it's too opaque - it's certainly not in the lede - and having the ''correct'' dates in an infobox will enable them to be quickly located. I also note that this "beautifully crafted article" includes a table naming the components of the work, called movements (the word "tableaux" does not appear in the article), which are thirteen in number. Will you be removing that? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:Presumably, she says that says that because Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not decide things by votes. You'll notice that I referred at the head of this section, to "suggested content". It is precisely so that such matters can be thrashed out that I stated this discussion. Taking the dates as an example, I can see no reference in the article body to any music being written before 1911; if it is there, it's too opaque - it's certainly not in the lede - and having the ''correct'' dates in an infobox will enable them to be quickly located. I also note that this "beautifully crafted article" includes a table naming the components of the work, called movements (the word "tableaux" does not appear in the article), which are thirteen in number. Will you be removing that? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::As per my comment above, could you please positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? You wish for the article to change: perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider the proposed infobox to be an improvement? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::As per my comment above, could you please positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? You wish for the article to change: perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider the proposed infobox to be an improvement? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I didn't notice any suggestion, above, that we should scrap info-boxes for all ballet articles. I think they are quite helpful for certain ballets, but not for all. I am unsure where best to pursue this, but it seems to me that unlike, say, operas, where Wagner's ''Siegfried'' is Wagner's ''Siegfried'', there are four different types of ballet article. Ones like this, where the piece has become better known as a concert work; ones with original music subsequently used by many later choreographers (e.g. [[The Nutcracker]]; ones with original music where there is only one notable version [[e.g. ''[[Ondine (ballet)|Ondine]]''; and ones using existing music, e.g. ''[[Façade (ballet)|Façade]]''. Each of these has, it seems to me, different requirements, and the ballet info-box template is not up to coping with the various permutations. Perhaps it would be better to pursue this on the relevant template talk page? [[User:Tim riley|Tim riley]] ([[User talk:Tim riley|talk]]) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:52, 31 May 2013

Featured articleThe Rite of Spring is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 6, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 2, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
September 11, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:WP1.0

Dancing to death

How does this even work? Is it just death from exhaustion? Brutannica (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a ballet, so not necessarily based on 100% fact? But it can even work like this, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The Rite of Spring
Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 first production
Native title
ChoreographerVaslav Nijinsky
MusicIgor Stravinsky
Premiere29 May 1913 (1913-05-29)
Théâtre des Champs-Élysées
Original ballet companyBallets Russes
DesignNicholas Roerich

Why doesn't this article have an infobox? I propose that we add either {{Infobox ballet}} (see example with suggested content, above) or, if that is not deemed suitable, {{Infobox musical composition}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Why" is not important. This looks good to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps: Isn't the native title in Russian? - The French one of the premiere is just above in the pic caption, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've changed to show both common non-English names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add the two-letter language abbreviation somehow, or say otherwise that it is Russian and French? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox ballet}} is completely inappropriate and very misleading. This article is about the musical composition, not a specific ballet with a specific choreographer. Although the Nijinsky choreography was the one used at the premiere, and is the most famous, this work has been choreographed by many others. Observe the way this issue is appropriately handled at Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) and the related articles on the ballets using that music. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

The Rite of Spring

Here's an alternative, using {{Infobox musical composition}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A net detriment to this article. The image that goes at the top File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect. Original is meaningless. Original what? The title under which this work is premiered is Le Sacre du printemps. You've just used up the space which could have been used to display the image as it was intended to be displayed and replaced with it with large striped construction containing the exact same information (albeit misleadingly expressed) as is in the first three sentences of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The width of thumbnail images in articles is a user-controlled setting; what you see may not be what other editors see. "Original" means "Original name". If that's not a suitable label, a change can be proposed on the infobox's talk page. What is "misleadingly expressed"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Original" label changed to "Native name" in template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox ballet}} had an option for enlarging the image, and indeed it is enlarged in the current article. This one doesn't. The title information is not congruent with the style of articles used for classical compositions. Native name is ridiculous as a field, and misleading because it makes no distinction between the name under which it premiered and the Russian name. If you want to change the template to allow displaying the image in a larger than default thumbnail size, and fix the way the titles are expressed, do it, but an infobox that looks like it does now is in my opinion, a net detriment to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting

Oppose any infobox. This was discussed back in December 2012 (see Archive 2) and the clear consensus was to NOT include any sort of infobox (80% against any box). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this was discussed before, by small number of editors, does prevent a new discussion, especially with different editors involved. The December 2012 discussion also seems to have been misdirected by false claims ("it it a long-standing convention that Classical Music articles in general... do not have an infobox", etc.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expressed my opinion (Oppose) above. I also think it is useful when a topic has been raised before to note that in a current discussion, and did so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS I erred above - there were five editors opposed to an infobox in December 2012 and one in favor. I have placed the same notice on each of their talk pages, inviting them to participate in the discussion here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I would like to thank Andy for waiting until yesterday's TFA was over before raising this issue. My oppose is based on the following:

  • All the information in the proposed infobox is contained within the first couple of lines in the article. It would seem, therefore, that its main purpose is to establish a principle rather than to assist readers of this article.
  • However limited the information is in the example presented, it is absolutely certain that once an infobox is in place, editors will try to extend the detail, adding stuff likely to mislead or misrepresent. These editors won't necessarily know much or anything about music. Thus there are likely to be constant battles, not only on this but on other music articles, diverting energies and attention away from the scholarly research required to prepare better articles. This is something that I care about and I think is more important than infoboxes.
  • On a small point of presentation, why should the superb Roerich design, which I think is a real draw factor for the article, be squeezed into the confines of an infobox?

I am not sure what Andy means when he talks about misdirection by "false claims". It is certainly true, in my experience, that the majority of editors who work on music articles are infobox-averse. Gerda may be an honourable exception; let us see if others will reveal themselves. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite of Spring

Oppose: An infobox is not needed for this article, as per the very good arguments above. There is no requirement to have an infobox on any page, but they do serve a very good purpose from time to time: this is not one of those times, however. If push comes to shove, then perhaps a {{Collapsed infobox}} by way of compromise may appease those who wish to see additional information repeated, although this will have the adverse effect of shrinking the excellent image, which would be a backwards step in this article's development. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Thanks to Ruhrfisch for notifying. Andy has elsewhere explained to me about the multifarious sizes of screen on which readers now access Wikipedia, and also about useful metadata (if I have the term right) that info-boxes carry. Points taken, but as things are at present I still think the balance of advantage lies in omitting boxes, leaving room for the maximum amount of text. (There are some types of article e.g. politician bios and cricket where I think info-boxes are helpful to the reader, but this isn't one such, IMO.) And, as a purely personal preference, I share BB's and SchroCat's dislike of top r.h. images shrunk to pygmy size to fit in boxes. Tim riley (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any infobox in this article. This article is better off without the infobox, which would contain only redundant information. Redundancies create ambiguity, especially as infoboxes are prone to contain errors and accumulate typos and cruft. The article Lead contains an excellent overview of the article and would not be enhanced by an infobox. None of the suggested infoboxes emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Indeed, I cannot imagine an infobox for this article that would present the important information acceptably. The infobox would also limit the size of the attractive and helpful opening image. I also think that starting the article with the infobox template would discourage new editors from editing the article. This article has been reviewed by numerous reviewers, and the consensus has always been that it does not need an infobox. These repeated attempts to change the consensus, can be viewed cynically as opportunistic. The box would waste space at the top of article with repeated information. The reader's attention should be directed immediately into the key information of the article, which is well-presented in the LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with preference for collapsed infobox. Yes, the image is indeed excellent, but it makes the article currently look like it's about a painting. What is really needed, dare I say it, is an image of dancers - but obviously not easy to come by. I also fully respect Voceditenore's view that it was to start with, and has become more of, an orchestral piece. All that said, I'd personally still prefer to see a box. I think the opera articles, with a good picture of the composer, all look excellent. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this touches on a key point: the Ballet Project tends to use a ballet info-box. This is not a problem when the article is about a ballet by one choreographer, e.g. Ondine (ballet), but is, IMO, dreadfully misleading to the reader when applied to a ballet score that dozens of choreographers have used, as in The Nutcracker. I think The Rite is very much in the latter category. – Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you Tim. I think what I'm personally looking for is something like this but with a bit of detail, about composer and history, available on demand. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any infobox as in my opinion, they cater for the lazy reader. Infoboxes are hugely repetitive, aesthetically ugly and offer nothing to the visiting reader other than redundent (and in most cases) pointless information. We as the authors As an author, I want people to read my contributions which I have written and researched for many months. To encourage readers to simply rely on the text within the infobox, does nothing for the potential educational values which our articles have to offer. Everything within an infobox can be (or should be) given in the lead section, which would make its inclusion grossly repetetive. Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article. -- CassiantoTalk 19:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "We as the authors ..." - I as an author like to serve both the reader who looks for a quick information as the one who wants to study the details, - I am obviously not part of that "we". I would prefer not to vote yet but think about content and presentation. I think {{Infobox musical composition}} fits this one better. The lead picture could be a different one, for example the one shown on the Main page, with the scene design presented later in the article, in performance history. If the scene image is misleading in an infobox, it's misleading for the article also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You quote me but use it to describe your own view, which doesn't quite make it a quote does it. Everything one needs to know quickly can be accessed from the first few lines or paragraphs of the lede. That makes it repetitive and redundant. -- CassiantoTalk 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may have language problems. If you say "We as the authors ..." and give your own view, I feel that I don't belong to that "we" but still think I am an author. More important: I read here again and again that the infobox is repetitive/redundant. Yes, of course it is, it is has to be or would be wrong, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you may not. I know exactly what you mean. And I agree with what you are saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I have struck my ignorant "we" comment. I can assure you that your English is good, and that it was my "assume everybody shares my view" view that caused the problem there. I also want to cater for the "need quick information now" community, but I prefer to give that information within the lead section. Also, to take up a point I read earlier (which I struggle to find now), I am wholly in favour of keeping the current image. It is stunning and should not be swapped (IMO) ;) --CassiantoTalk 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I totally agree with those who find the infobox to be redundant to a properly-written first paragraph (lead). I also agree with Tim Riley that a number of issues remain concerning the categorization of a ballet and the music written for a ballet. After all, the score for The Rite of Spring is no more the ballet than the scenario or the costume designs. I've noted inconsistency among the "top title" for various ballets ... some are simply listed by the name of the musical composition (as this one), others are listed as "Composition (ballet)". This makes life difficult for editors who want to provide accurate wikilinks within articles. Seems to me attention to this question would be more profitable than infoboxes. It might be a good idea to create a general template for ballet and ballet-related works. After the general lead, one could have (for example) individual sections on scenario, score, productions, (which should include not only the work of individual choreographers, perhaps in chronological order, but also set and costume designers as appropriate. Any thoughts? Yankeecook (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some merit in agreeing a recommended general layout for ballet articles, as is already the case for opera articles. But this has to be flexible; each work has its own circumstances and character, and emphases will differ. I would strongly oppose any kind of robotic approach to article-writing; in fact I would retire on the spot if such a thing were enforced, which I am sure is not your intention. However, let's stick to the infobox issue for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yankeecook has some very good ideas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So far we seem to have a consensus so far as an info-box for the Rite of Spring/ article is concerned. More generally, there is a generic ballet info-box template {{Infobox Ballet}} but however much it were tweaked it isn't obvious how it could cope with the very valid distinctions you make between the score and Mr A's and Ms B's productions of the ballet etc. That, perhaps, is a matter for another page. Tim riley (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton: Totally agree about flexibility -- which is one of my objections to infobox. Martinevans123: Thanks for the compliment. Tim riley: Agree that this should be discussed more generally elsewhere ... please suggest where and I hope we can take this up. Yankeecook (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox facts

The Rite of Spring

I don't believe that voting helps to decide if this article deserves an infobox or if an infobox would "damage" it (a phrase user on Richard Wagner). I suggest we try to talk about a good infobox and then see if it can be taken to the article. My start is shown here. We may improve both the infobox and the template. For example, I changed the order in "Premiere", to not have "location" between "conductor" and "performers", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, I think that seems a little bit "cart-before-the-horse" really, and a drain on everyone's scant available time. Why not discuss the merits or otherwise of inclusion of an infobox, rather than spending countless amount of time discussing individual fields of something that probably won't even get onto the page? If it is agreed that an infobox is a "good idea" for the page, then the discussion of the minutiae can take place once people are happy with the concept. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really think to have the repeated "no infobox here" arguments for every article is a waste of everyone's time. (This is not even a composer.) Nobody is obliged to participate in one or the other kind of waste. - It is tricky to determine if an infobox is a good idea if you don't know what will be in that box. - I will not waste my time calling people to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that we already know what will be in the infobox: an overly small image sitting on top of the bullet-pointed contents of the lead. The particular sub-species of infobox is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things; the concept of overly-simplified tid-bits sitting like a malignant growth in the top right-hand corner of the article is the bigger hurdle to get over. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's notable that (once again) the opposition to an infobox for this article rests mostly on arguments (many of them facile) against infoboxes per se ("waste space", "repetition", "cater for the lazy reader", "[leave] room for the maximum amount of text", "beautifully crafted article", "overly simplified", malignant growth") which are not about the article in question. The use of an infobox here may have been out!voted, but it hasn't been out-argued. Those who oppose the use of infoboxes at all, or for whole classes of articles are again invited to raise an RfC to prohibit them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat unsurprisingly, I think your summary does a disservice to those above who have put forward arguments. I also note that you haven't put forward any arguments for the inclusion of an infobox. Rather than besmirch the thoughts of others, perhaps you could positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rite of Spring
(ec) Not necessarily so, - in reply to SchroCat. I don't like the collapsed section variety, but it is possible, see for example Little Moreton Hall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's a such a small image. If you could enlarge to the size of the one on the current page, there may be favour to be found with some. I don't like infoboxes on a number of articles, but when they are foisted onto articles, this is a compromise that may work, but only if the image size can be sorted appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at Little Moreton Hall? It can be done, but would be a waste of space here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It's not as good as a straight image of a decent size, but it's a compromise that some will be happy with. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First: Gerda Arendt -- How can you say that "voting isn't hepful to decide ..." when there is an overwhelming vote 'against' an infobox? Furthermore, in your "suggested" example, there are already a number of factual and/or misleading errors. First, The Rite wasn't composed between 1911 and 1913 (it was largely composed during that time, but was, in fact, begun earlier; second, it was not composed "at Clarens" -- it was partly composed at Clarens; third, it does not contain 13 "movements" (it contains two tableaux); fourth, "ballet" is not a "form" (but rather a "genre"); fifth, it is not scored for "Symphony Orchestra" (whatever that is ...) it is scored for a very specific orchestra specified by Stravinsky down to the last detail! That's why I believe "infoboxes" are really "disinfoboxes." PLEASE ... let's move on ... and let's give some thought to the questions raised earlier concerning how best to relate ballets (the production/staging/choreography) to their musical scores. Thanks. Yankeecook (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, she says that says that because Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not decide things by votes. You'll notice that I referred at the head of this section, to "suggested content". It is precisely so that such matters can be thrashed out that I stated this discussion. Taking the dates as an example, I can see no reference in the article body to any music being written before 1911; if it is there, it's too opaque - it's certainly not in the lede - and having the correct dates in an infobox will enable them to be quickly located. I also note that this "beautifully crafted article" includes a table naming the components of the work, called movements (the word "tableaux" does not appear in the article), which are thirteen in number. Will you be removing that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment above, could you please positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? You wish for the article to change: perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider the proposed infobox to be an improvement? - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice any suggestion, above, that we should scrap info-boxes for all ballet articles. I think they are quite helpful for certain ballets, but not for all. I am unsure where best to pursue this, but it seems to me that unlike, say, operas, where Wagner's Siegfried is Wagner's Siegfried, there are four different types of ballet article. Ones like this, where the piece has become better known as a concert work; ones with original music subsequently used by many later choreographers (e.g. The Nutcracker; ones with original music where there is only one notable version [[e.g. Ondine; and ones using existing music, e.g. Façade. Each of these has, it seems to me, different requirements, and the ballet info-box template is not up to coping with the various permutations. Perhaps it would be better to pursue this on the relevant template talk page? Tim riley (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rite_of_Spring&oldid=557707520"