Talk:Gustav Holst

Linking to the Military Band recording

According to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works so long as (as is likely) their own recording is legitimate, this shouldn't be a problem. (Offsite linking to images causes a bandwidth issue and overusing the link to the wind band suites may eventually do the same, but that's a separate question.) Thanks for finding a compromise approach. Schissel : bowl listen 16:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and input. I'm a huge Holst fan, and I thought the link might help people curious about or interested in his music. I figured that the link-ees wouldnt mind because I linked to a page about the album, which included things like purchase information, instead of deep-inking the files. I didn't replace the links elsewhere in the article, even though they were broken, because another format was specified and because this was my first edit and I decided to take a minimalist approach. :)

Pictures

Does the article really need two pictures of the Royal College of Music. We get it, he went to the RCM. It just seems a bit superfluous. Gruesome Pet

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gustav Holst/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Gustav Holst: 2009-01-23== This is an assessment of article Gustav Holst by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Limited personal details. When did he marry? children? ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? Limited personal details. ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. A list is given in a separate article; it claims to be "selected". ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? Weak; some musicology. Needs more, and more on his musical legacy (who he influenced, or claims him as influence). ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Two images; could use more. Some sound clips. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article primarily references (modern) Britannica; Some inline citations. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) lead needs work ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) Article needs (more) images and/or other media (MOS:IMAGE) ===Summary=== This is a decent musical and professional biography. It would benefit from some additional personal details, such has when he met his wife, married, when his daughter was born. It could also use a more musicological look at his music as a whole. I note that the primary references are to another encyclopedia. If Britannica starts deciding Wikipedia is also reliable, we'll come full circle. There are biographies of him available that should be consulted (although editors referencing his daughter's biography of him should be aware of the Alma problem). The article's lead consists of several single-sentence paragraphs that read almost like a trivia section; it should be rewritten per WP:LEAD. Article is a weak B-class; there is room to improve. Magic♪piano 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments

The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear rex, a bit of overkill on the hyperbole there! "Chilling"? "Fiat"? "Forbidding"? A note that "prevents any consensus from being discussed"? Untrue, of course: it does not prevent anything of the sort, and the talk page is still open and accessible to all who wish to discuss things. What the note does do, is to alert others that the addition may be contentious on this article; it is, thus, an attempt to avoid edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

All of it is true, otherwise why are you so keen to see the misinformation kept. Or have you actually convinced yourself that a Wikiproject can instruct editors not to edit? A content issue canot possibly be "contentious" if it has never been discussed. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"All of it is true": patently not! – SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on removal of hidden comment

Should the hidden html comment, "!-- please do not add an infobox: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes--" be removed from this article? RexxS (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help:Hidden text gives examples of where hidden text is appropriate, and where it is not. One of the examples of inappropriate use is: *Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.

• • When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.

The policy relating to the use of infoboxes is at WP:INFOBOXUSE:

• The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

In the case of this article, there is no previous discussion about infoboxes and no existing consensus. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support removal

• Support The hidden comment here clearly breaches our guidelines on its use. It is nothing more than a pre-emptive measure to put editors off adding an infobox to the article, despite the absence of any previous debate. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal. There is no good to reason to treat the addition of an infobox differently from other edits: all can be reverted and discussed if it seems necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal: There was a clear directive from ArbCom that the "local consensus" of a wikiproject on infoboxes is not applicable, and that each article is to be considered on a case by case basis. This hidden comment, in fact, is a violation of the sprit of the ArbCom decision, though I don't think the decision specifically addressed this hidden comment issue. FWIW, it's also instruction creep. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal because it's inappropriate. However, I'd support a /FAQ at the top of the talk page that says (if true) that editors here have discussed it and decided against an infobox, with a suitable link to WP:Consensus can change. (NB that "editors here" does not mean "members of a WikiProject having a discussion elsewhere in an effort to make blanket rules for all articles that interest them".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support removal noting that the rule is that consensus on any individual page is sufficient for inclusion or exclusion on that page, and no project may mandate inclusion or forbid exclusion by a consensus found only on a talk page of such a project. That said, I would suggest that a positive consensus for inclusion of an infobox for this page would make sense as a requirement before any infobox here is added. Collect (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose removal

• No. An attempt to avoid edit wars and the dramah that follows is to be welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• No - per SchroCat. Too much time is wasted talking about the same things over and over again. A factual note, such as this, saves all the ensued drama which would, inevitably, disrupt the article. Cassianto^Talk 20:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal – per Jerome Kohl and Laser brain. Further: the references to Help:Hidden text are misguided; that's a Help page, not a guideline. The guideline at MOS:DONTHIDE, or more pointedly at MOS:COMMENT, says nothing of the sort. In fact, it says the opposite. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal - We had a case only the other day where a well-meaning editor added an info-box to a Featured Article at which there was a consensus against a box. The mistake was quickly corrected, but a message like this (with amended wording if wanted) would have saved that editor embarrassment and wasted effort. Tim riley talk 06:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Who cares? Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored. Anyone who actually wants to put in an infobox will do so. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I care because I believe it can dissuade a new editor who isn't familiar with the policy from adding an infobox, even if they felt it would improve the article. It lends a false authority to the WikiProject, contrary to WP:CONLOCAL. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, rex thinks it's "chilling". Mind you, he wants the edit warring and an attempt to drive away those with a more flexible mindset, simply to get an idiotbox into every article. – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think a third option, rewording the comment, should be available.--John Cline (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Where there has been prior discussion, then I maintain that a comment pointing to it is helpful, for example, I made this edit to William Walton. But where no discussion about an infobox has ever taken place on the article talkpage, I don't believe there can be any rewording that helps the potential editor. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course there can: it's not beyond the capacity of a sentient being to come up with an alternative. You just don't want anything there. – SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why not. WP:HIDDEN is perfectly clear on how this should be done: soften the wording to make it clear that this is no prohibiting policy, but requesting the courtesy of discussing it first. I have WP:BOLDly done this in the present case, as well as in half a dozen cases I encountered just before getting to this one, which is the first where I found any discussion at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:HIDDEN is indeed perfectly clear: "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit" (my emphasis). It does not say "Where there is no existing consensus, the hidden text should require the editor to seek consensus on the talk page before making an edit." We'd never have an encyclopedia if everybody had to get permission to edit beforehand. There's no existing consensus here and no justification for requiring editors to seek one before editing. See WP:BRD. --RexxS (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Point of order, but this hidden comment removal occurred on several pages and now the issue is being litigated across multiple talk pages. We should centralize the discussion somewhere so people can comment in one place. That being said, these types of notices are quite useful to content editors who spend their time building and maintaining pages. I've seen them on plenty of music articles advising people not to add/remove genres, on the Elvis article instructing people not to keep adding infobox fields that don't have consensus, etc. This type of disruption almost always occurs in infoboxes because every know-all wants to roll by and add tidbits of information whether it's sourced and in the article or not. So we save ourselves a bit of time by saying "Look here before you do this." I fail to see the problem. --Laser brain (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Looking closer at the hidden notice: "please do not add an infobox: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical infoboxes": A reader of the hidden notice can't follow the link, only sees a label with the appearance of authority. A reader who takes the time to copy the link location arrives at the top of the project page because the section header "Biographical infoboxes" doesn't exist. A reader who still doesn't give up but searches for the term "infobox" finds a piped "here" and gets to a section of the project guidelines. What will such a reader think? - Can we agree that this confusing wording should not be kept? Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

new day: Francis helped to a better link, so I could strike most of the above. The question is still the same: couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice? I suggest to drop it for some, and leave it for others, as a test. - DYK that I will have another DYK about peace today? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe it is a browser issue, but when I look at the message it reads somewhat differently: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes". I agree that linking syntax in hidden text is useless, and if the section header no longer exists, then it should be updated. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Is it simply because we are too lazy to update the information?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
  • PS: I just checked the link, and apparently the section header has just been restored, because I was not redirected to the top of the page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That's not what the notice says now. You may have missed the edit an hour and a half ago; it now reads: "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes".

As for "Finding a new wording would take time, - couldn't we just try to do without the hidden notice?" I am not sure what the rush is. The text from before the most recent edit has been there for some time, so I don't know why we need to suddenly rush to delete it today (along with the same deletion on several other pages – which verges on the disruptive IMO). Any open-minded and flexible approach should be able to come up with alternative wording if the consensus is that a replace,went is needed. – SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the damn things where they are a generic hidden notice, and no new wording. Further "please do not add an infobox" is contrary to what ArbCom flat-out ordered us all to do -- fight it out article by article by article. (Which none of us particularly like--that much, at least probably unites the pro- and anti- infobox factions) To the extent that individual articles, post-ArbCom, have endured an infobox war, a consensus was, however grudgingly, granted, and both sides have beaten the issue to a standstill, perhaps in those limited cases a hidden note with the permalink to the "consensus" could be included with a caution to the editor that they should consult before adding or removing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

So, you haven't read "the damn thing", either. It presently asks to do exactly what you demand: fight it out article by article. Now, would you like to start over again, or just withdraw your comment?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom spoke, and until they reinstate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, this is all we have, article by article. Not sure what you mean by "haven't read," I've read this whole section...the bottom line is that the WP Classical music projects have exploded repeatedly over this issue, it will never be resolved, I've yet to see a debate that doesn't devolve down to an ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT discussion, and a lot of people who would normally get along rather well are at loggerheads and go straight for the jugular whenever the topic arises. Someday, we will have a universal infobox policy and these ridiculous debates will end, but I suspect it will be years from now. Montanabw^(talk) 08:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I amicably disagree. The classical music project hasn't exploded, nor the composers project. In this whole discussion, we need to read only one comment, the first one in this section: "Its an invalid notice anyway and can be safely ignored." Thank you, Only in death does duty end, for nailing it. We are discussing if an invalid should be there or not. I say "not" to keep it simple, but if it's there, also no harm. All this talk about dramah and edit war seems a bit exaggerated. When was the last time that a newbie added an infobox which was reverted? When was the last edit war? - Thank you, Tim, for being so considerate of the other user's time ;) - How about the experiment to leave half of the composers changed without the notice, the others with it, and observe? My prediction is that it makes no difference, so could be safely omitted. - People die, and we still talk about a hidden notice, really? I am going to write a Requiem article now, thinking of Kevin. (With an infobox, naturally.) Only in death does duty end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, dearest, it wasn't a music article I referred to, but I am not so naive as to flag up another article where the Info-box Panzers can immediately roll. Remind us about Kevin and what he has to do with this discussion? Tim riley talk 14:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

There are no Info-box Panzers, unless you can provide a reference for their existence. Why are you so afraid? - Kevin. (I thought everybody knew that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Gerda! Pro-IB bullies banned score= ? No names, no pack-drill. Never ran across this Kevin, but I see from your link that he was a sacked admin. What's he got to do with this current discussion? Tim riley talk 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I believe Gerda is referencing the fact that Kevin Gorman appears to be dead and hence she will think of him while she writes a Requiem article. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Laser brain, For what it's worth, although I had heard the news about KG, I'm also confused about what he (or GA's requiem) have to do with the discussion here. (Not that I'm after any explanation - there is no connection). - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Requiescat. We are all God's creatures, and to be prayed for by anyone who can pray (which I know from private exchanges includes both Gerda and me). Nonetheless I am unsure why the poor soul is being dragged in here unless it's to camouflage the tanks, which would be rather inappropriate in my view. Tim riley talk 15:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, your intention to drag in a recently deceased editor to detract away from the matter in hand is bloody disgusting. Please stick to the matter in hand. Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• It is a misnomer to say that this page has "no existing consensus" because "there is no previous discussion". In my opinion, that fallacy is the impetus of this debate's failing! No page on Wikipedia exists without the collaborative assent of others, which itself is the foremost act of consensus building across the project. In the absence of local discussion, editing discretion is always subject to the accepted best practices achieved by some earlier consensus.

In particular, it is unequivocally clear that the decision to include an infobox, or not, is a style preference, As such, deference is generally given to the earliest edit to establish the preference. In a dispute without factors of mitigation, like policy or an overriding consensus, the status quo should be, and most often is, upheld. The hidden comment should merely reflect the established preference, without prejudice, unless and until it is itself, perhaps, superseded.

Therefore, depending on the prevailing style, at times the hidden comment should say, in effect:

Consensus for this article favors the inclusion of an infobox. It should not be removed unless superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page.

Whereas, at times, it perhaps ought say:

Consensus for this article favors the omission of an infobox. One should not be added unless this preference is superseded by competent means like an office action or a reversing consensus on the talk page.

Thank you, and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And thank you, John! A gracious and impartial suggestion that could well form a basis for a protocol we could all sign up to. Tim riley talk 13:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry John, but the decision on including an infobox is a matter of content, not style, and ArbCom made that clear in its decision at WP:ARBINFOBOX (a good example is "infoboxes combine elements of content and style, but the decision whether to have them or not is presumably a content issue, not a style issue" at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. The fallacy in your argument is that any part of the content of an article may be absent at some point in its development - for example this article had no "Legacy" section for at least six years - but that does not imply that consensus is against inclusion of such content. Similarly, the absence of an infobox does not imply any consensus not to have one. In fact the maxim is "silence is consent" and any editor ought to be free to add content, including an infobox, to any article if they believe it improves the article. If they are reverted, they should expect a reason founded in policy from the reverting editor. That is how we should all be editing and these hidden comments fundamentally undermine that process and encourage OWNership.

The comments you propose breach the guidance at WP:HIDDEN. For articles where a consensus has been reached in accordance with policy (see WP:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.") it is not appropriate to state "One should not be added"; any such comment should do no more than draw the editor's attention to the debate where the existing consensus for the article was established. For articles where no prior debate has taken place, no restriction should be placed on an editor's ability to improve the content. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

"Presumably" does give a little leeway (and it's not the first time Arbcom have possibly erred). I have seen others refute the "content" argument, stating it is a formatting question. – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)