| Revision as of 15:05, 6 December 2022 edit2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:bd00:a400:8804:f9ac (talk) →RFC regarding the addition of an infobox← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:58, 6 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,463 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive 5. (BOT) |
| (135 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{tph|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=10:08, 3 September 2007 |
|
|action1date=10:08, 3 September 2007 |
| Line 27: |
Line 28: |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=October 17, 2009 |
|
|maindate=October 17, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2017-05-07|otd1oldid=779153355 |
|
|
|otd2date=2020-05-07|otd2oldid=955431659 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=FA}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=High|old-peer-review=yes|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Composers}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|musician-priority=High|old-peer-review=yes|musician-work-group=yes|listas=Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Composers|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Opera}} |
|
{{WikiProject Opera|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=y|Ballet-importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Ballet|class=FA|importance=Top|Ballet-importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|perform=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=FA|importance=Top|perform=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|person=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies |class=FA |person=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Music theory|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Music Theory|class=FA|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Arts|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2017-05-07|oldid1=779153355|date2=2020-05-07|oldid2=955431659}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
|author = Catarina Buchatskiy |
|
|author = Catarina Buchatskiy |
| Line 51: |
Line 52: |
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|accessdate = 23 May 2022 |
|
|accessdate = 23 May 2022 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
|archiveprefix=Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky/Archive |
|
|
|format= %%i |
|
|
|age=2160 |
|
|
|header={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
|maxarchsize=100000 |
|
|
|minkeepthreads=4 |
|
|
|numberstart=5 |
|
|
|archivebox=no |
|
|
|box-advert=no |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archive box| |
|
{{archive box| |
| Line 56: |
Line 69: |
|
#] |
|
#] |
|
#] |
|
#] |
|
#]}} |
|
#] |
|
|
#]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019 == |
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change source of repertorie to ] ] (]) 01:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ]]] 05:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Tchaikovsky and Ukraine == |
|
|
This entire sub-section was removed with the edit summary: "Doubtful notability. Half of the section is entirely unreferenced, widely unapropriate secondary source which is a ukrainian nationalist website. Please find an actual scholary source if you intend to reinstall these." Do other editors agree with this appraisal? Could other editors provide any better sources? Some of the material seems to be simple statements of fact which should be able to be easily sourced elsewhere. Without any of this material, there is no other substantive mention of Ukraine in the entire article? Thanks. ] (]) 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Some history: On {{diff|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|757809032|757644255|2 January 2017}} by ], then on {{diff|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|758117389|758088230|4 January 2017}} by ]. Many books comment on Tchaikovsky's musical connection to Ukraine, or Little Russia (see also ], ], ]). I think it would be reasonable to restore that section, plus the one removed by Antandrus in 2017, and request additional citations. BTW, none of this was present in the article when it was promoted to FA on {{diff|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|280535929|280534439|30 March 2009}}. -- ] (]) 11:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Many thanks for that clarification. I tend to agree with you about restoring it. I see that the IP editor concerned has been editing only since 11 April 2019 and geolocates to Russia. ] (]) 12:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm ok with restoring it (thank you Michael for reminding me of the history -- I remember now -- needs to be better cited). I'm always leery of things that look like nationalist pushes, e.g. Tchaikovsky was really Ukrainian, as was Stravinsky, only no he was Polish, no American -- but the Ukraine connection with Tchaikovsky is genuine. ] ] 13:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Is it true he even wrote a ]?? ] (]) 14:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 1862, Ukraine did not exist. The Soviet Union created the Ukrainian Republic. |
|
|
LOOK MAP |
|
|
https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18500429/ |
|
|
|
|
|
UKRAINE this fool FAKE. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraine did in fact not exist as a political entity at the time. Rather, it was a subdivision of the Russian Empire. Mentioning a region despite it not having independence at the time that it was mentioned is allowable and helps narrow down the region. If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine." ] (]) 22:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages must be true. Ukraine and Ukrainians did not exist at that time. This is an artificially created state. So remove the fake from Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what to say. Are you saying that Ukraine is artificial and is apart of Russia?] (]) 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraine has never existed. This territory in the Russian Empire was called ]. Then the Soviet Union artificially created Ukraine. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Are you then suggesting that our articles on ], ], and others are also "fake"? ] ] 22:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:IP it is difficult to take you seriously at all, when you remove an entire section from an article repeatedly, shout in caps on the talk page, and repeat the same thing over and over again. First of all, Ukraine was ''not'' first "created by the USSR", see ]. Either way, the Ukrainian region has always been home to the Ukrainian ethnic group; please refer to Lavaminer's comment above "If I wanted to say "Tchaikovsky visited the region between Moldavia and the Sea of Azov inhabited by the Ukrainians," it is much easier to say "Ukraine."" – and this is indeed how secondary reliable sources refer to the event. You need to provide secondary reliable sources (that apply to Tchaikovsky's life specifically) which align with your perspective here, otherwise your comments will not go anywhere. ] (]) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHOW me Ukraine on the map in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Ukraine and Ukrainians is an artful country created from ] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Tchaikovsky never visited Ukraine, this territory was ], part of the ]. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
MAP https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18500429/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:See Aza24's comment above, please: we need reliable secondary sources or we can't take you seriously. |
|
|
:I can just as easily produce any number of historical Ottoman Empire maps that demonstrate, as reliably as your argument does, that Turkey, Bulgaria, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Macedonia, etc. etc. are "fake". ] ] 23:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is ridiculous. First see what your source is. This is nonsense of a Ukrainian nationalist. Sheer nonsense that has nothing to do with the truth. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I don't want to argue further. Let all English Misplaced Pages see your shame. And remember, Tchaikovsky did not visit the nonexistent state of Ukraine. ] is part of the ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Just claiming it must be nonsense and nationalism to claim Ukraine existed does not make it that way. Would you also claim Poland did not exist before 1918, Ireland before 1921 or India before 1947? Ukraine does have a ] to ] or ] and was treated differently both by the ] and the ]. Of course they all existed, just different. But that is to be expected. Every nation changes over time even Russia ] (]) 04:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ukraine existed long before 1862. It appears on maps and in literature in the 17th and 18th centuries, for example the map of Ukraine by Cartographer Johann Baptist Homann circa 1720 (Title: Ukrania quae et Terra Cosaccorum cum vicinis Walachiae, Moldaviae, Minorisq., Tartariae Provinciis exhibita) ] (]) 18:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agreee and I suspect this Misplaced Pages Article has been vandalised in the past. It used to have much more information about Tchaikovsky and Ukraine. When trying to find sources online I even found an interesting ] (]) 03:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pronunciation == |
|
|
At present the first sentence of the lead is clogged up with six different guides to pronouncing the composer's name. This is not very welcoming to visitors to te page. May I suggest we move most of the variations into a footnote. A comment ] seems to me very much to the point. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. The English IPA seems unnecessary because there is no uncertaintay or doubt about the pronunciation of "Tchaikovsky". The transliteration of Russian adds nothing, and the Russian pronunciation ought to be placed in a footnote, as suggested. IMO the Cyrillic script of his full name is worthwhile having in the 1st sentence. -- ] (]) 04:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Michael Bednarek|MB}}, I suggest we leave this thread open for a week and then if nobody has expressed dissenting views I'll do as discussed above (unless you prefer to do it.) Does that seem sensible? '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 21:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fine with me for you to do it; ]. -- ] (]) 01:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{u|Michael Bednarek}} and {{u|Tim riley}}, I concur that the inclusion of the Russian transliteration is pointless and have removed it. The English IPA may have a place however, as those not familiar with the composer would find a rather odd name to pronounce. ] (]) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== First sentence of the laed == |
|
|
The opening sentence here makes absolutely no sense with all these odd dates it's unlegible and needs to be fixed as per ].--<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span> <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 16:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The intro is a mess == |
|
|
Regrettably the intro has declined severely in quality since this article was featured. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is overly long and discursive, while also no longer containing a proper summary of basic details such as the composer's major works and styles or innovations. |
|
|
|
|
|
The second paragraph in particular is full of dubious, subjective statements, with not a single citation to be seen. For instance, "The principles that governed melody, harmony and other fundamentals of Russian music ran completely counter to those that governed Western European music". This is too vague and smacks of over-exaggeration. Russian music still followed a tonal system, so no, it wasn't "completely counter" to Western melody and harmony. I'm sure it was counter *in some respects*, but which? And it's followed by, "and caused personal antipathies that dented Tchaikovsky's self-confidence". What does "personal antipathies" mean here? Isn't this claim highly subjective? It sounds like original research. What is the evidence? And why is it important enough to be in the lead? |
|
|
|
|
|
I recommend that the intro is reworked by an expert and the article marked as such. I think a lot of it should be removed, the second paragraph especially, or at least marked as dubious. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the intro should highlight (with a source) something that affirms the immense popularity of his work today. ] (]) 04:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Featured article review== |
|
|
This article does not meet the FA criteria due to being incoherent in places, especially the lead. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 10:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|Buidhe}} I don't think the article has fallen that short of the FA criteria. <s>It seems like a lot of nonsense was added to the lead over the years since its promotion. ] (]) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
:Honestly, after rereading the lead, it seems fine to me. It actually rather elegantly describes the position Tchaikovsky was in and his life struggles. Are there some specific concerns you could point out? ] (]) 23:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm not goot at articulating prose issues, the phrasing of the article just seems difficult to understand and unnecessarily convoluted to me. I will put a pointer on FAR talk. <span style="background:Black;padding:1px 5px">]]]</span> 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image needs a consensus == |
|
|
The lede image needs to be decided on so it stops randomly changing, this is after all, a featured article. The current image was put in place with seemingly no request or explanation on the talk page. After scrolling through the history, 4 or 5 images have been put in and then taken out without much, if any discussion. was used for a while, but in my opinion the is by far the best choice. (And it seems to have been used on this article for a while as well) Tchaikovsky was active until his death and this painting being made in the last year of his life is representative of his 6th symphony, arguably his ]. ] (]) 23:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky vs Petr Ilich Chaykovskiy == |
|
|
I reverted a move from Pyotr to Petr as it was done without discussion or stating a reason. As this article is an FA, I expect that the name was properly vetted by editors and that a move should be discussed first. ] (]) 08:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't even worry about it. It was a sockpuppet troll. ] (]) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Not worried in the slightest, however felt a note explaining this was necessary as I am 100% clueless here on the correct rendering the name and reverted solely on this being an FA. Cheers. ] (]) 07:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why is there no information box? == |
|
|
Beethoven, Bach and Handel have the information box. But then most of the other major composers do not. Like Brahms, Chopin, Mozart, Haydn, and Debussy. Since when are the great classical composers not worthy of an information box? Like why? ] (]) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{re|Cj7557}} Hi, infoboxes are a rather contentious subject on Misplaced Pages (in the articles of classical composers specifically), please see ]. Keep in mind that Beethoven, Bach and Handel are not featured articles, where as Tchaikovsky and some you mention like Chopin and Debussy are. ] (]) 00:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::But my question is when did simple convenience to the reader become obsolete? Is it not convenient to see the date of birth and death (and age of death) right there? Not to mention the college that they attend. Spouses and children. And a whole bunch of other things. ] (]) 00:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{re|Cj7557}} I am largely impartial to the conflict so I can't give you the answer you seek. The link I put above summarizes the opposition's side well. If other page watchers would like to chime in, they should feel free to. ] (]) 00:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Consensus on infoboxes is by individual article. They are neither required nor prohibited. This issue was severe enough to lead to an arbitration case some years ago. To me, they are redundant with information in the lead, which is better nuanced, but lots of people disagree. ] ] 01:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
@Aza24 Well thank you for your time anyway. ] (]) 01:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Now the Information box is added. ] (]) 15:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 3. Tchaikovsky's voice == |
|
|
Tchaikovsky did not want his voice to be recorded. Those who pretend to respect his music should also respect his will. Misplaced Pages does not do this in this case. |
|
|
Misplaced Pages's will is to donate money to Misplaced Pages. I ignore this request just as Misplaced Pages ignores the will of Tchaikovsky. |
|
|
--] (]) 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:You feel better now? In any case, it looks like Tchaikovsky was about it all. ] (]) 18:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 2 December 2020 == |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''page not moved'''. <small>(])</small> —]] 13:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Pyotr Tchaikovsky}} – The rest of the world knows his name as Pyotr Tchaikovsky, and this is enough. No need for the middle name "Ilyich" here. It's not necessary to do so. ] (]) 20:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' – {{xt|The rest of the world knows his name as Pyotr Tchaikovsky}} – what's your evidence here for such a statement? I've never heard someone say "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" – I've only only "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" or just "Tchaikovsky". While not a flawless experiment, a simple google search of "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" vs "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" reveals 1.4 mil and 300k results respectively... seeing no reason to move. ] (]) 20:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''No opinion''' - but ] "Peter Tchaikovsky" as consistently more popular than "Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky", and "Pyotr Tchaikovsky" as slightly more popular than "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" until 2007. --] (]) 20:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Aza24. ] (]) 01:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''; agree with Aza24. "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" (or Peter) is the most common, at least as long as I've been a musician. ] ] 01:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Aza24, Srnec and Antandrus. Tchaikovsky's entry appears in 143 Wikipedias and all, except four, use the patronymic. —] <small>] • ]</small> 01:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Aza24 and ]. '''Please ] this''', as that's where this is headed. ] (]) 05:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' per Aza24 et al. -- ] </sup></span>]] 07:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Aza24 and ]. second the ] request ] (]) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support'''. It's easier to pronounce without the atavism, see ]. All the classical composers are mentioned with patronymic by Russians which doesn't mean much for the English-speaking world: , , and so on. Thus, it's just a leftover of Tchaikovsky's American popularity in the XIX century which led to a kind of cultural appropriation of his patronymic and not a dogma forever. BTW, it kind of implies all the other Russian composers are not as "respected" in the West (because the patronymic use meant "respect") just by not being as popular which is true but the approach is unreasonable because the whole patronymics-as-respect concept for Tchaikovsky is very archaic: "We, the public, love you so much that we accept all the additional issues because of your patronymic". It's ridiculous because he's a composer, not a Russian language teacher. There's another Tchaikovsky on Operabase but is good enough for them, Pyotr Tchaikovsky can be good enough for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::It doesn't matter if " it's just a leftover of Tchaikovsky's American popularity in the XIX century", it matters what the most ] name is. ] (]) 05:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{Ping|Melodia}}, the influence of Misplaced Pages is in the stats of his brother ]. Sooner or later all of his family members will be "Ilyich" in here. This is a pseudo-conservatoire approach as it is. ] (]) 11:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In fact the 'influence of Misplaced Pages' is EXACTLY why it it shouldn't change. Misplaced Pages's job is to describe what exists, not try to change what exists. ] (]) 18:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::]]] Before 2007, 'Pyotr Tchaikovsky' was more popular use that 'Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky'. These 13 years only prove the effect of Misplaced Pages. His first name won't change, the bold first three words "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky" won't change. It's just about the URL (of his and his brother's name) and title. Moreover, his connection additional connection to Russia through his aggressive anti-user-friendly patronymic in the title is derogative for his international legacy. Like a woman in {{Bibleverse|1 Kings|3:26|KJV}} the infamous "Mother Russia" keepers has to give up Tchaikovsky's patronymic here. BTW, had been using the Polish COA of Lithuanian origin. The haters of Russia will make up whatever is possible — from racism to a lack of feminism — to deny his international genius. His brand is safer in Anglosphere with a more "Polish-Lithuanian" tag. Truth hurts. ] (]) 20:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' The proposal is not backed by sources comparing how often the different renditions of the name are used. ] (]) 10:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Suicide attempt== |
|
|
To add to this article: a mention of Tchaikovsky's wading into the freezing cold ] in 1877, an unsuccessful suicide attempt, prompted by the failure of his marriage. ] (]) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Relationship with Bob == |
|
== How on earth can you have an ENTIRE page on Tchaikovsky and NOT MENTION the Nutcracker ballet??!! == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wording of this section suggests that Tchiakovsky’s letters penned after Bob’s suicide were revealing. Tchaikovsky in fact died nearly 20 years before the suicide of Bob. ] (]) 17:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
Seriously folks - his MOST BELOVED music. Most people have never heard of the 1812 Overture. Please, someone, don't be so pretentious and snobbish that you completely ignore this huge gift to the world. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Good point. The version of this article ] as promoted to Featured Article mentions it, and other well-known compositions, in the 1st sentence. (Apparently, it's easier to mess with an FA's vital content than to rationalize its citation mechanism.) -- ] (]) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, that is confusing. ] (]) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I've swapped the order of the last two clauses in that sentence, which I believe removes the anachronistic implication. ] (]) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Born in Russia. He was very inspirational. ] (]) 15:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== == |
|
== Was not able to edit this page == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted to add a wikilink to this article, but found that it is locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! ] (]) 01:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
Should we use it? It was made the same year (albeit before) he died and I think it is the only painting of him made in his lifetime. ] (]) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: Due to persistent vandalism the page is semi-protected and can be edited only by auto-confirmed users. You can become one, but in the meantime if you state here which wikilink you want inserted, another user can add it if appropriate. ] (]) 06:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|173.88.246.138}} you could become an autoconfirmed user if you create an account and made 10 edits after 4 days. ] (]) 21:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:What makes it better than the current high-quality photograph? '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 15:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Requesting the implementation of an Infobox == |
|
|
|
::I didn't say it has to be in the lead (although perhaps that is an option), I just pointed out the option to add it to the article - perhaps at around the time soon before he died ] (]) 03:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is a nice painting, and rather frequently reproduced. This article is rather-below FA standard and will need heavy revision at some point. For instance, I just trimmed some excessive images and there's still no place for the painting. We should keep this on the back burner, pending article expansion. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 21:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of portraits == |
|
I request that an infobox should be added to accurately summarize the basics of his points. The previous consensus was years ago and there's clearly greater support for the inclusion of IBs in this article. ] (]) 06:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The number of photographs was overdoing it. But I do regret the loss of some of them. Maybe being a simple soul I like to think about people as having recongisable faces. And for that reason I regret the loss of some close associates: Chakovskiy's wife, the very importanat Nadyezhda von Meck, whose husband had made a fortune from the railway line that took Ukrainian wheat to RUssia, etc. |
|
:I personally think an infobox is very useful for summarizing simple, basic but yet important facts of the person, those which somebody may enter the article with the sole reason of reading them; birth, death, cause of death, parents, children (if has), spouse (if has), notable works (or at least the most known ones), influences, signature, etc. |
|
|
:Many times I enter an article only for reading some of those facts, easy thing in Spanish wiki as there the infobox is available in composer's articles, but here it's a somewhat harder task. The ] (]) 01:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could we have some of these pictures back please? |
|
::I see no reason for not including a infobox. A lot of information is known about Tchaikovsky so it would be valuable to summarize it all in one place. ] (]) 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] (]) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Not sure what you mean, Tchaikovsky's wife is still there (personal life section), as is Nadyezhda von Meck (opera composer section). '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Clearly there is interest in making an infobox here, but this needs to go through an ] process before continuing one way or another. —] (]) 06:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality == |
|
== RFC regarding the addition of an infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are various competing theories and interpretations of Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add the ] to connect his article with other similar discussions. I don't see this as expressing an opinion one way or another, it is simply recognizing that these historical interpretations exist. ] (]) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
<!-- ] 05:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1672722070}} |
|
|
{{rfc|bio|hist|media|soc|rfcid=1726CCA}} |
|
|
In the wake of my previous post last month regarding the addition of an infobox, I have decided to follow through @]'s advice and initiate an RFC regarding the question. Should we add an infobox to the article? ] (]) 04:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''', add the infobox. Don't see the harm, and seems like there's an appetite.--] (]) 05:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes'''. Infoboxes are very convenient summaries of some key stats people are apt to be looking for, especially on the mobile version of the site (I don't think they work in the dedicated Android app for Misplaced Pages, though, just the mobile browser version). In this particular article, the lead sentence is a mishmash of Cyrillic and IPA, and the birth and death dates may not be visible until the 2nd to 4th lines (depending on viewport width and font size). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 06:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 20:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::These are all great arguments, just one factual correction: The Android Misplaced Pages app supports infoboxes too (it just puts them behind a "Quick facts" button, similar to how the mobile web version collapses sections). Regards, ] (]) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*{{reply to|Aza24|Antandrus|Tim riley}} You all might be interested in this RfC. —] (]) 06:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{U|Typos Checker}} and {{U|Roostery123}} also commented in the above thread before it was re-opened as an RfC. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Make that {{U|Roost}}; the user-name changed so the ping didn't work. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''': The war against infoboxes has always been a silly one with no true good reasons against them. ] (]) 07:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – There are two reasons why we have avoided info-boxes for composers (i) they add nothing useful from the readers' point of view and (ii) they make Misplaced Pages look amateurish. See the one forced through for ]'s article. What does it tell the reader about Beethoven? |
|
|
*:*His dates (which are in the lead) |
|
|
*:*That he was a composer (which anybody visiting the article will know) |
|
|
*:*The names of his parents (of interest to few, if any, readers). |
|
|
*:*What his signature looked like (ditto). |
|
|
*:As to what is ''important'' about Beethoven – his works – the poor reader is asked to click away from the page to ''an entirely different article''. That is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy on i-boxes, which is to present key facts contained in the article. But if you are determined to ignore the policy and add an i-box for doctrinaire reasons ("Every article should have one, despite Misplaced Pages's agreed policy") so be it. – '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Beethoven is of little concern here, so I won't comment on your bullets, but I oppose the wording "forced through" for ] ("it appears to me that there is consensus that a short, well maintained infobox should be included"). Needless to say that I'd happily see more parameters filled for Beethoven, but at the time (2015), the miniature version was a possible compromise. What could be the compromise for Tchaikovsky? Quite generally: an infobox is only a collection of facts that some readers may want to find quickly at a certain position, not a sort of "summary" of a great person which would be impossible. --] (]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' Add an infobox. I think Tim Riley's objections to the Beethoven infobox exmplify the feebleness of the "against" argument. Look at the first sentence of the lead here: |
|
|
*::Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (/tʃaɪˈkɒfski/ chy-KOF-skee; Russian: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский, IPA: (listen); 7 May 1840 – 6 November 1893) was a Russian composer of the Romantic period. |
|
|
*: I do not think anyone could regard this as a good way to start an article. It is trying to say "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) was a Russian composer of the Romantic period." But all the rest of the padding in the parentheses is precisely the sort of (reasonably important) information which would be much better expressed in tabular form, in an infobox. I don't know if TR's characterisation of "WP:POLICY" is accurate, but if it is it should be changed. Lots of things belong in an infobox because they do not naturally fall into a textual narrative, and are relevant factoids. For example the standard stuff about dates and the Russian calendar, the name in Cyrillic, the signature if available, these are all information which some readers will want to see. ] (]) 09:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' it would be a nice addition to the article. ] (]) 10:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' – In the spirit of the preceding !vote: It would be a disagreeable addition. But seriously: which "stats" would lead to a better understanding of Tchaikovsky? "Lots of things belong in an infobox because they do not naturally fall into a textual narrative, and are relevant factoids." That's exactly not how biographical infoboxes work. -- ] (]) 11:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Do you have a link to the previous vote/discussion? It may be useful here. Also if it was not relatively recent, consensus may have changed since then as noted in . ] (]) 12:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::<small>I think Michael just meant the line (!vote) above his.</small> --] (]) 12:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Zing! Anyway here is a previous discussion from 2010 if anyone wants to take a look ]. ] (]) 13:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I’m not interested in the consensus of a decade-old discussion by a single project with no official authority. This reliance on referring to ancient “]” decisions is getting tedious and almost ]ish. ] (]) 16:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::Yeaaaah.... I believe WikiProjects are explicitly called out as having no power in ] and should be the place of last resort. A lot has changed in 12 years. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''', add an infobox. Called by bot. These provide a brief summary and should be standard for many articles including biographies. In response to ]'s reasonable objections, I think these provide a framework for thinking about how to improve infoboxes in the long term. My suggestion to Riley is to work on a style/writing guide for composer infoboxes that, for instance, doesn't merely list the wiki page about all the composer's works, but also lists some of their most famous and important works. That would seem daunting for incredible composers like Beethoven, Bach or Mozart but it's feasible. -] (]) 14:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:I am absolutely against using infoboxes to become a "best of" compilation of a composer's works. ] (]) 21:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
**:]: ah, interesting. -] (]) 13:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
**::I would agree that's a bad call. But we can develop consensus to figure out which things should and should not be included in the IB. Arguments which say "no IB" simply because of what ''could'' be included are short sighted. We can figure out what to include and what not to. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''': I'm personally agnostic about the infobox issue, although I do now typically include them whenever I create or expand articles on classical music. If this RfC moves in favor of adding an infobox to this Tchaikovsky article, I have a couple of concerns that I'm hoping this RfC can clear up. First, the infobox should ''not'' insist on listing "notable works". ''Everything'' Tchaikovsky composed is going to be "notable" in some way. Presenting only a selection of "notable works" in the infobox not only discourages further reading and investigation, but the choices of what is deemed "notable" can't help but be based on arbitrary personal preferences. Second, the infobox should stick to the facts and not be a space to display tantalizing rumors about Tchaikovsky's death, such as occurred awhile ago when an IP user added an infobox to this article that was briefly visible. The fact remains that despite rumors to the contrary, the only official cause of Tchaikovsky's death was from cholera. Of course, scholarly speculation to the contrary ought to be addressed within the article itself. —] (]) 17:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{tq|1=Presenting only a selection of "notable works" in the infobox not only discourages further reading and investigation, but the choices of what is deemed "notable" can't help but be based on arbitrary personal preferences}}<br>This is a short-sighted, and, to my eyes, elitist argument. If there is no consensus in RSes which works are most notable, then yes, we should not include such a list. If there is a consensus in RSes (not users), then we should include a short list. Or avoid the list altogether and just link out to the "list of notable works" as suggested below. But that is not the only purpose of an infobox. Knowing the birth, death, locations, general style and movements, etc of a composer or any famous musician, is extremely valuable to naive readers. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' - infoboxes are extremely common for biographies across WP, and there's no reason for this particular subset of biographies to eschew them. Add one for consistency, if for no other reason. ] (]) 17:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:In fairness to the opposing side, part of their argument is that most composer articles don't have infoboxes, so the consistency argument may run the other direction, at least within this category. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: I doubt the "most composers". Yes when you look at the featured articles that a small group of users has produced. Possibly no when you look at contemporary normal composers' articles. It depends completely on the taste of the author(s). Ipigott made ] when we discussed ]. Recent FAs about composers, by other authors, tend to have one (], ], ]), and we have a ] with an infobox. Most composers are also musicians, conductors, academic teachers. Why their composing would set them apart from other creative minds has escaped me so far. --] (]) 21:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::{{tq|1=I doubt the "most composers". Yes when you look at the featured articles that a small group of users has produced}}<br>100% this appears to be the case to me. An IB is valuable for this article. Denying one to avoid specific elements is such a short sighted solution, and many oppose editors here appear to be litigating old battles. Naive participants appear to support an IB and say "why not? Looks advantageous to me" — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: ] was made FA yesterday. --] (]) 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes'''. I don't see why the article shouldn't have an infobox with basic information. That's what other similar articles have. ] (]) 12:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:If you and others above want to overturn ] ("The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. …"), this is the wrong venue. -- ] (]) 13:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::"We must have one" is a completely different bar than "we SHOULD have one." Absolutely no one is arguing that an infobox is REQUIRED here, so that's a bit of a straw man. ] (]) 15:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::No one is arguing that consensus elsewhere supports an IB here. users are simply saying "if it helps, why not?" And I have seen no particularly effective "why not" arguments. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' - Infoboxes have become a normal and valuable part of the user experience when navigating an article on Misplaced Pages. The data backs up this conclusion. Making information easy to find and consume is one this project's highest priorities. While there's always going to be a reluctance to adopt something new, infoboxes have become so common there would need to be an extraordinary reason to justify not including one in an article with significant content. There is certainly some room for discussion around what can or cannot be included in the IB, but it's time to accept that infoboxes are a valuable tool for the end user. Thanks! ] (]) 16:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' – An infobox would be really useful for an user who wants to quickly check just a little but yet important fact. The information in an infobox could include birth name (including its Cyrillic version), date and place of birth and death (which, as Imaginatorium said, its not straight at the start of the article), age when dead, cause of death (which could be in this case be written as "] (])" for avoiding speculation, and if somebody's interested in reading more about the topic, they can go to the linked article), parents, spouse, children (not the case), where studied, if had any notable teacher or any notable student, etc. A summary of simple facts somebody could be interested in checking without reading all the article. Notable works would also be interesting information to add, as in ''my personal case'' I sometimes look for the notable works of the composer just to see if I've heard something from it, but I understand the arguments against it, so I'm neutral about the inclusion of such information. --The ] (]) 03:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:This is exactly what makes me worried about including an infobox in this article. Why should unproven speculation be mentioned in the infobox? What are the objective and universally agreed upon criteria that determine what a "notable work" is? — ] (]) 04:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::How it is different from including them in the lead, as many articles (including this one) do? If there's no "universally agreed upon criteria" then for sure it shouldn't be there either. ] (]) 06:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::Space, for one thing. Inclusion of "notable works" in the infobox would encourage reducing Tchaikovsky down to a small string of "hits" with no objective and verifiable criteria. If you want to remove the works mentioned in the lead as well, I would support it. A number of composer articles—such as those for ] and ]—only mention in a general way genres or ensembles that their subjects composed for. (The former mentions "Babi Yar" not to point out its "notability," but to illustrate an example of CPSU intervention.) ] (]) 06:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::The unproven speculation of Tchaikovsky's death could be useful for showing that there are certain doubts about his death by some scholarships, but still keeping the official cause of death (hence, the "sometimes disputed" between parenthesis, leading to an article about the topic if the reader is interested in reading more about that). About the notable works, I said in my original statement " but I understand the arguments against it , so I'm neutral about the inclusion of such information". Despite I would like a list of notable works, I perfectly understand that it would not be objective, so I don't support it nor reject it. However, I really support the implementation of an infobox in the article. --The ] (]) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::If an infobox is added after this RFC, "notable works" will probably not be listed in the infobox regardless. {{tl|Infobox classical composer}} includes this instruction after the notable works parameter: "Link to "List of works" subarticle here. Do not list individual pieces", and indeed no classical composers w/ infoboxes (that I know of) list individual pieces. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::The documentation at {{t|Infobox person}} cautions against including this parameter; that's good advice in this case and disregarding it would invite problems. -- ] (]) 01:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::This is an excellent solution to the dispute over which works would be included. A list in a separate article is a great place to link. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*''( via bot)''{{pb}}'''Yes'''. An infobox helps readers to more quickly access key information about the article's subject. By now, we also have evidence for this from ]. Agreed that one still needs to carefully decide which facts to include, but the same is true for the lead section and really any part of an article. Regards, ] (]) 06:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' - Infoboxes are almost always welcome in my opinion, as they offer handy and clear information that readers might need at a glance. ] (]) 13:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Generalities like "helps readers" and "almost always welcome" are not enough to make a case for an infobox in specific cases. -- ] (]) 01:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The infobox which has been added contains no information which is not present in the opening of the lead. No one has demonstrated a need for this feature. Energy would be better spent in improving the article which (esepecially in its Music section) seesm rather mediocre. --] (]) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Then you can spend that energy doing it. Or did you forget that everyone here is a volunteer who decides what to spend their time editing? Whenever I see a comment like this I wonder if those people feel likes there's some obligation that every contributor has that they do, in fact, not have in the least. ] (]) 06:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:According to this cited passage in the article: "Biographers have generally agreed that Tchaikovsky was homosexual". There appears to be no dispute about this (I've never heard of one), despite his failed marriage to a woman. ]'s recent biography is unequivocal about Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. He reaffirmed this . Morrison also said that Tchaikovsky's wife knew in advance that he was gay. The only thing Morrison disputed was that the Soviets suppressed knowledge of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. (If anything, he said that homophobia about Tchaikovsky is "mostly non-Russian".) —] (]) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:'''Yes''' because infoboxes are ''expected in biographies'' and the issue will always come up until one is finally added. Readers don’t care about the esoteric reasoning of the anti-infobox camp, which typically argues infoboxes are some form of “dumbing down” or they make readers not appreciate the “real” article. ] (]) 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::As countless other biographical articles without infoboxes demonstrate, nothing is "expected" other than an informative article. If an infobox can help with that, great. — ] (]) 01:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::“Countless”? I’ve seen like two. ] (]) 13:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well, pardon me. I guess anecdotal evidence is "like" objective truth. — ] (]) 14:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And where’s your citation for “countless”? ] (]) 14:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' Numerous biographies (including this one) have lasted for many years without an infobox, and there are no good reasons shown above to change the consensus. What was included in the most recent addition were the dates (contentious, given his dates were recorded as 25 April 1840 – 25 October 1893 in the old date system). Also included is a link for his works to take readers away to a different page. WP's policy on IBs, is to present key facts contained in the article. A link to another page is a breach of those guidelines. |
|
|
:(I'm not sure it was a good idea for the editor that wanted an IB enough to open the RFC, then also closed it and added an IB - that's a long way from best practice for how to deal with a contentious issue. I won't remove the box, but the article should be returned to the STATUS QUO while the RFC continues. ] (]) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::“Numerous” apparently not being most of these: ] ] (]) 20:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Go through the list of composers graded as FAs. ] (]) 20:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And why do composers not get infoboxes? Is there a reason, beyond “consensus fro: 10 years ago”? ] (]) 20:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Because IBs are relatively useless, dumbed down trivia boxes that contain a couple of factoids that don't aid understanding. The fact that people add them without considering them fully is a sad situation. And it's not just composers. Of all the GAs and FAs I wrote or co-wrote. I suppose about 50% had a box and 50% didn't. They were only inclded when they provided a '''benefit''' to readers, not just because 'other articles also have them'. ] (]) 20:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That’s your opinion, and it’s one I’ve heard a million times before, and it’s thoroughly unconvincing. ] (]) 20:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::That's fine. I don't find most arguments for the inclusion to be convincing. There is no policy for consistency, so the constantly voiced 'they're expected' holds no water, for example. ] (]) 20:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::“They’re expected” isn’t an argument for consistency. It’s an argument for the reader experience. We believe it benefits, you believe it does not. It seems you are quite opinionated about infoboxes, whereas naive editors to this article appear quite supportive of the idea. Which do you think better represents the perspective of our readers? — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Stalking to add to the talk page harassment and removal of my comments on a separate talk page? This is low behaviour. - ] (]) 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::This is ] for this discussion. I got to this discussion through the participation of other editors, nothing to do with an anonymous IP whose address changes often enough it would be too difficult to track anyway. It's much more effective to address the content of others' arguments, not who is making them. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The main/regular editors should decide, not drive-bys like me and several above. ] (]) 00:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Articles arn't owned by certain editors. That's the whole point of an RFC. ] (]) 11:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{tq| The main/regular editors should decide, not drive-bys}} This flies in the face of the entire point of RFCs, to establish a robust consensus provided by more input from uninvolved editors. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes'''. This is a big article, and I think an infobox would be useful to the reader. See ] for how an infobox could look here. ] (]) 01:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' add the infobox. Great way to summarize the most important and DUE info about this person. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Note for closing admin: this is a !vote from someone who has stalked me to this page from a dispute elsewhere; they have also been harassing me on my talk page. ] (]) 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:*:Hi, I actually got to this discussion c/o ] and ]'s involvement, both of whom I respect, even if I occasionally disagree with them. In this case, I think we agree, but I'm here only because I usually find discussions they participate in interesting. In general, this comment is ] and should not be handled here, it should be handled on user talk. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:*:What talk page? You don't have one. ] (]) 07:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's a dynamic IP address (I can't change that), but they were harassing on one of the other user talk pages. They have also stalked me to an article I have previously taken to FA. It's rather threatening and chilling to be followed around like this. ] (]) 10:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:*Additional Note - This IP editor (formally known as SchroCat) has grown increasingly hostile towards editors who are arguing in good faith. This editor needs to move away from ] tactics. ] (]) 14:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::*I am being stalked by an editor who has harassed me and has tried to gaslight me. I doubt good faith in the actions of this one individual. I am not using any battleground tactics, but I will not hesitate to point out stalking and harassment. ] (]) 15:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
Should we use it? It was made the same year (albeit before) he died and I think it is the only painting of him made in his lifetime. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The number of photographs was overdoing it. But I do regret the loss of some of them. Maybe being a simple soul I like to think about people as having recongisable faces. And for that reason I regret the loss of some close associates: Chakovskiy's wife, the very importanat Nadyezhda von Meck, whose husband had made a fortune from the railway line that took Ukrainian wheat to RUssia, etc.
There are various competing theories and interpretations of Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add the Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality to connect his article with other similar discussions. I don't see this as expressing an opinion one way or another, it is simply recognizing that these historical interpretations exist. Rylee Amelia (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=link}