Johann Sebastian Bach
Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach by Elias Gottlob Haussmann, 1748
Born	(1685-03-21)21 March 1685 (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685) Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach
Died	28 July 1750(1750-07-28) (aged 65) Leipzig
Occupations	Composer Cantor Organist Conductor
Years active	1703 (1703) – 1707 (1707): Arnstadt 1707 (1707) – 1708 (1708): Mühlhausen 1708 (1708) – 1717 (1717): Weimar 1717 (1717) – 1723 (1723): Köthen 1723 (1723) – 1750 (1750): Leipzig Thomaskantor
Style	Baroque
Spouses	Maria Barbara Bach (1707–1720) Anna Magdalena Bach (1721–1750)
Children	Wilhelm Friedemann Bach Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach Johann Christian Bach
((Johann Sebastian Bach))
Signature

I suggest an infobox, which includes a link to his navbox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No comment on whether there could/should be an infobox, but a link to a template's page when that template is already transcluded on the article page is completely inappropriate for any infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Infoboxes are very useful and provide a great overview of a topic. Many people often use them. PumpkinSky talk 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox would add nothing to the article. It's useless. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are badly informed. The infobox would add the following classes to information in the article: vcard; fn; bday; birthplace; dday; deathdate; deathplace; role; vevent; dtstart; dtend; location; category. None of those are included in the article at present. All of those make the job of scraping information from the article much easier for third-party re-users. In addition, an infobox can be used by more sophisticated tools to extract and aggregate information in ways that you don't seem to be aware of - see Intelligence in Wikipedia for some of the possibilities. Additionally, we expect a brief summary overview of a topic at the top right of Wikipedia articles.

Now, if you want to argue that the infobox doesn't look right to you; or takes up too much room; or that this sort of subject can lead to misleading summaries which are over-simplified, then you would at least have a credible argument. But the "add nothing/useless" argument was discredited five years ago, and rolling it out again does tend to insult our intelligence. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I oppose infoboxes for the reasons that have been repeated many times in discussions like this one, as well as visual reasons, just to be clear. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The box opposite would mislead the reader into thinking that Bach was equally important as a cantor, organist, and conductor as a composer. In any case giving pre-modern composers 'occupations' is anachronistic. The pro-boxers never seem to get the anachronism thing. Did none of them ever study history? --Kleinzach 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid argument, but falls short by ignoring the point that having the information does not always imply equivalent importance (however importance may be judged). What it does do is allow Google (or whoever) to answer a question like "Was Bach a singer?" quite quickly because they can make semantic relationships between "Was X a Y?" and "occupation=Y" even it is anachronistic. Once you establish that a "Cantor belongs to the set of types of singer", then the answer can be supplied automatically. Not only did some of us study history, we also studied linguistics and information processing. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

RexxS: Ha! I think you need to read Cantor (church). This is quite amusing! You've now demonstrated that this infobox can actually be an infotrap, or should I say a booby trap, leading the innocent reader to the wrong conclusion! Kleinzach 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean the right conclusion, surely. Bach was indisputably an accomplished singer from his youth. Nevertheless you may have a point if there are examples of cantors who were not singers, so I take your objection seriously. There will always need to be a balance between supplying information and over-simplification. The answer is to be smarter about how we supply information, not to suppress it. --RexxS (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach was a child singer. The cantor post was that of a (musical) schoolmaster. Did he perform as an adult? Was he a tenor or a bass? It would be interesting if you could provide some information — with sources. The current article doesn't explain anything much about Bach's singing, despite the (apparent) suggestion from the infobox that this was a notable aspect of his work. Kleinzach 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the answer to "Was Bach a singer?" is "Yes" then. I can now see that when Bach was employed as a Kantor in Leipzig, it was as a teacher, even though cantor in almost every other use would imply a singer. For that reason, I'd fully support removing cantor from the infobox because anyone familiar with the more common Catholic usage of the term would get the wrong impression. Incidentally, our article currently doesn't contain a single link to Cantor, so unless the reader already knew of the exceptional Protestant use of the term (as I didn't), they would also get the wrong impression even without the infobox. That rather weakens the "infoboxes give the wrong impression" argument, doesn't it? At least the infobox had a link. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Easily fixed in the article. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment/mild oppose Avoiding infoboxes seems to be common practice for composers. Of the first five classical composers I checked at random (George Frideric Handel, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff), all followed the same infobox-less format. This appears to be something of a standard for these projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Article_structure states "It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page". Which in turn says “We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.” So I'd lean towards oppose unless there was a good reason this article should be different. Rwessel (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That may well be the consensus of a WikiProject, but the RfC called by members of the project concluded that "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations", which is what you you cite, "but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per PumpkinSky & RexxS. An infobox such as that shown here would have enabled the above casual reader to quickly answer their own question, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as reductionist, unbalanced, and contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals. As has been previously noted, there is no technical reason why the metadata Rex supports above could not be provided in a less obtrusive manner. Note: I've also changed the section header to better reflect the topic being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not only are infoboxes not "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals"; their emission of metadata has been praised by the WMF's technical director. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You are mistaken: one of the WMF's key goals is to attract new editors in general and women in particular, and to increase accessibility for these groups. The complexity of wikimarkup - being confronted with a wall of template text upon hitting the edit button - is one of the most commonly cited reasons for both groups not becoming editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • But the counter-argument, Nikki, is that filling in a template with informative labels is much easier and more natural than writing the raw html to supply useful classes for re-users. I do accept though that new editors often find the edit box and wiki-markup a barrier, although my experience is that new women editors are just as capable of dealing with those barriers as men. We should be looking for better technological solutions like the visual editor and collapsible editing elements (so the editor doesn't see the content of templates until they expand them) to encourage new editors, not repressing our current technology because it's less than perfect. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Per your edit summary Fighting with women doesn't do much for the atmosphere, to be honest. There probably is something to be said for the argument that women in general are more likely to walk away from bullying - and there has been more than a bit of bullying in the infobox issues. I think in that sense Nikki's argument is quite strong. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Rex, expecting a new editor to deal with a large template as the first thing they see when they hit edit is not any more reasonable than asking them to use another method to supply classes...but why on earth should we expect newbies to be doing those tasks? (I do agree with you about the wiki-markup being no more or less intimidating because of my gender, but the publications appear to disagree with us on this point, and of course TK also has a very valid point). I also agree that we should be looking for technological solutions, which is what I said in my initial post - find a less obtrusive way of providing this data to reusers, rather than continuing to push a poor substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think we disagree on the effect on new editors, Nikki: I accept that in full, but I just don't accept that women cope less well with wikimarkup than men. As I've trained dozens of new editors - both men and women - over the last year or so, I'm going to claim some insight, anecdotal at least. Sadly, it has taken us years to make progress on the visual editor and it's still got some distance to go, so we put up with wikimarkup, on the assumption that new editors don't have to use it because it can be tweaked later. I still see infoboxes and citation templates in the same light: article improvements from a technical perspective, but they have to be balanced against other valid issues. At present only infoboxes do the job we want for Google and other re-users, probably because the problem of creating a non-intrusive replacement is not trivial. If we ask a developer to provide us with a substitute, how do we answer them when they reply, "You already have something that does that job for you"? --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
            • As a woman (and yes only a single example) I have to disagree. I'm not entirely unsavvy techwise, but I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window. If I have to fight about them, as I've spent much of the last year doing, then I'll withdraw my volunteer time spent writing here. This article can do with a great deal of maintenance and clean-up - i.e there are over 30 redundant links creating a great deal of unnecessary blue. Rather than fighting yet another infobox war, and I find this to be provocative at best, perhaps someone should work on bringing it back to GA status. If we're only concerned about the tidbits given to Google, then an entire section of the editor base is unneeded - and the women will leave first because to them this is not a video game to be played over and over. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Saying "something exists" has not been a barrier to saying "create something new" for the devs - cf. initiatives like Article Feedback. To my knowledge things like persondata, which also provide metadata, have never been objected to...because those, unlike this, are unobtrusive. Surely that template family could be improved/expanded to serve the purposes you require? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I believe I have previously referred you to the essay in which I explain Persondata's shortcomings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I teach Wikipedia editing, to a variety of audiences, and estimate a 60% female attendance. I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox. However, your allegation is one worthy of further investigation. I invite you to make that point in an RfC proposing to remove all infoboxes form Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I invite you to re-read the above and respond to what I actually said. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I decided to sleep on it, but I woke this morning still troubled by the "infoboxes are contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals because their mark-up is complex and confronting (especially to women)" argument – which, in the absence of empirical or statistical evidence, has to be treated as (sorry to say) a guess.

Articles have many edit buttons, and I don't believe that new editors are likely to start with the one at the top (thus avoiding the infobox syntax); instead, they are more likely to click the edit button for a section (as a result of reading something they wish to update within the bulk of the article). Evidence for that claim? Looking over the history for this article (and discounting vandalism, reverts, bots, and scripted edits), the vast majority of edits have edit summaries that start with a grey comment (the section heading).

Perhaps it's the enlightened part of the world in which I live, but I find (what amounts to) an argument that new editors (and especially women) are less likely to be able to scroll past a well-structured listing of infobox parameter=value pairs (all in clear English) to be, frankly demeaning. In contrast, strong empirical evidence has been presented ("I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox" – from a teacher of Wikipedia editing). A many-more times difficult-to-surmount editing challenge is to get past the vast swathes of in-line referencing/citation syntax (for which WP has developed efficient and elegant alternatives); but watch all hell break loose when an attempt is made to implement those alternatives in music-related articles – in an attempt to simplify the editing challenge for new and casual editors. If you are to adopt a fight about what is "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals", could I respectively suggest that you help those of us who are trying to drag music-related article referencing out of the nineteenth century?

Template ((Infobox person)) is used on at least 125,000 articles, so the ship on whether they are "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals" has well-and-truly sailed, and is not a cogent argument to be applied to a single instance of debate here.

"Put parameter=value pairs in other mechanisms such as Persondata" argument has exactly the same problem as raised by others here – to do with the over-simplification and distortion of summary information (and you can safely forget the extension of Persondata to encompass composer-related fields). I am sympathetic to that point of view, but what I'm not sympathetic to is the "this is too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't even try" approach that is evident here. Wikipedia has numerous talented editors and programmers, and just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted, nor does it mean that there isn't a solution. I propose that a workshop page is created and that all of us start to kick around the parameters, ideas, problems, and solutions that could make this work for all of WP's readers (and yes, that includes those who quickly want summary information). That doesn't mean that a solution will definitely be found (let alone implemented), but at least we can say that we gave it a significant shot (and the considered and patient input from those who understand the problems would be more than welcome).

It will be interesting in this case to see if the closer looks beyond the "as per" votes and instead tries to get to the consensus of substantive debate? ("Oppose Per obvious"?) In other words, "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule". Anyhow, I've had more than my fair share of input now, so I'll leave it alone. Could someone please let me know if/when a serious attempt is made to see if a solution to this is possible (because I would love to be involved)? Cheers.

GFHandel ♬  22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You might consider looking for empirical evidence before stating that there is none. To give you a quick example, this source specifically cites infoboxes as impediments to new editors ("the ease of editing around wiki syntax drastically decreased as the complexity of the article increased and included infoboxes"). Sue Gardner has also cited technological barriers as a reason why women don't edit. Your evidence regarding section vs whole-article editing is inaccurate because most of the edits you examined were by experienced editors, not newbies. Preliminary research suggests section-edit buttons as currently designed are confusing to newbies, and a quick look at new and anon edits at Special:RecentChanges finds far fewer section edits than your statement suggests. As to "this is too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't even try" - we should try, but pushing a flawed model because we haven't yet developed something better doesn't qualify as "trying". Instead, I would encourage you to go ahead and create that workshop page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to you taking up my suggestion to start an RfC proposing the removal of all infoboxes from Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say there was none, I said "in the absence of empirical or statistical evidence" – which was an observation that you had provided none in your original post. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Thanks for providing some links, however since I can't check the first without payment, and the second is a blog which doesn't mention infoboxes, I'm a little stuck in proceeding with analysis (which is not to say that I don't have an opinion about Gardner's command of WP policy – which I'll keep to myself). Of course the point is that there are technical solutions that lessen the problems you mention; for example (and in a similar way to ((Coord))), I'm sure it wouldn't be the greatest technical problem to move the Infobox syntax to the end of the article and add a parameter such as |display=top (thus circumventing the possibility of new editors encountering mark-up syntax upon first editing). Perhaps you could push for that reform around the time you push to remove the far more confronting mark-up barrier of swathes of in-line referencing syntax (as opposed to the benefits of using things like ((sfn)))? One last observation (and because of a certain incident yesterday, I'm done): there are currently 1,256,137 transclusions of ((Infobox)), so to try to present an argument that there is some sort of special case for their avoidance in this article (or indeed in some other composers' articles) is disingenuous. GFHandel ♬  20:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

GFHandel retired --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the problem with these discussions: they are upsetting, unproductive, unnecessary and drive away editors. That was clear from the last discussion and the many preceding this. Truthkeeper (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Nikkimaria, and the many many many other previously made arguments against infoxboxed being imposed on this subject area. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This infobox has the typical problems of infoboxes. (1) It gives very prominent representation to not-very-important data, such as the sequence of minor German cities Bach lived in while starting his career. (2) The shoehorning of information into the infobox format introduces factual distortions; in particular, a reader of the infobox might think that Bach had only four children (a spectacularly wrong conclusion, as you will learn if you read the article text). Unlike some editors above, I think we should not customize WP for readers who just want to browse for trivia -- we are a reference source, not a trivia outlet, and other WP policies emphasize this point.Opus33 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that - in order not to make the infobox too long - it has at the bottom a link to the navbox which provides a timeline of his compositions and much more? It would be easy to add how many more children he had, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is true, Gerda -- but on the other hand, it makes the infobox longer and longer. Take a look any chemical element article to see the nightmare this can lead to. Also, please note that I mentioned the kids as an example of inaccuracy, but it's also an example of trivia that should not be prominently displayed. Both are problems for infoboxes. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And also above I see, its not just anymore about making the article easier for supposed two second page hoppers, but reducing so as to make it easier for "third-party re-users" to "scrape". Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why the scare-quotes? Do you have a problem with our content being re-used? Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia from a Google talk dated 2008? Infoboxes have always had a function in presenting data in a fairly standard way as well as marking up microformats - both of which are used by third parties. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia from a Google talk dated 2008". Read what you said there again. In all fairness. I have a problem with content being subverted for secondary use. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll also write it again: "Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia?" No, of course you didn't, because in your mind other users like Google wanting - for more than five years - to make use of our content is "secondary". Your blind insistence that only your idea of what is "primary" is acceptable is exactly the sort of elitism that drives away thoughtful editors like GFHandel. Congratulations, that's one more reasonable voice that will no longer inconvenience you while you cling to outdated concepts of what our project is about. --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

RexxS, "elitism that drives away thoughtful editors like GFHandel". Thats a very sly and low, malign conclusion you opined there, but typical of you, from all I have seen. Well done twisting, once again. But again, if you going to discount me for not having read a "Google talk dated 2008", then well, thats not a very convincing argument and in fact an appeal to an aging authority, and forgive me if Im not taking you dismissive smear with much weight. You and Mabbit, yer quite the team. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Opus33. The oversimplification mandated by the infobox concept seems particularly ill-advised for articles on artists of all sorts, including composers. The complex nature of "classical" music in particular resists this sort of Disneyfication. Dumbing down Wikipedia composer articles like this trivializes the article. Save it for the "Classical Music for Doofuses" websites.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per several, including Opus and JK. We have to take a stand somewhere against the dumbing-down of Wikipedia. Infoboxes compete against the article, and lazy eyes pick up their oversimplifications, trivia, and distortions. We're an encyclopedia, not a trivia site, and only the article itself can present the appropriate nuance. To casual readers: read the first paragraph. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In the case of the causal reader referred to above, the opening paragraph does not mention Bach's two marriages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Bach is not famous for having been married twice. Your argument is an excellent example of exactly why we should not have the infobox -- since it privileges the unimportant. Antandrus (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Since my argument is not that Bach is "famous for having been married twice", your response appears to use the straw man fallacy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Infoboxes are useful for biographical articles in a handful of categories—professional athletes for instance, whose uniform numbers and career statistics can be presented in quick-reference reductionist format without making a mockery of their life's work—but are generally detrimental in articles about artists. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• blah blah blah infoboxes suck and should never be on composer articles because they are just so special and anyone who wants them is a lazy idiot. blah blah blah (etc.) (and in case you didn't get it, that was a parody of the arguments that people usually use. Over and over and over again. And again. Ad nausum) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nikkimaria, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, and Ewulp, all of whom have made strong arguments against trivialising this article about one of the greatest and most important composers of all time. --Kleinzach 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't believe that an Infobox is trivialising or dumbing-down. It is about supplying information to a wide range of readers – something WP is in a unique position to do. I choose not to assume the worst about our readers; instead, I believe that each reader will get out of our articles what we can supply and what they want – and if a reader comes to the article to find obvious facts, then it is WP's duty to present such information in a consistent way across similar articles. BTW, the bulk of the article is still there for those who want to dig (and really dig sometimes because similar information for Bach, Handel, Mozart, Cage, etc. is always presented differently in the prosaic text). I have written a large amount of WP-database XML scraping software, and it is a refreshing change to find well-formatted infoboxes that allow me to acquire information consistently (so there really is a downstream argument in this debate). The wise approach here would not be to jettison the suggestion with trivialisations, but to work on improving the infobox layout so that it is both useful and unobtrusive. Such an approach might be to create collapsible sections (such as already happens with ((Handel))). I am dismayed about (what I can only describe as) the Luddite mentality that pervades composer and music pages (as I frequently see in referencing/citation discussions), and I live in hope that one day a refreshing and clean wind will breeze through – dragging these articles out of their current appearance (which can best be described as being from a nineteenth-century book). Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start. GFHandel ♬  04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It would be most helpful to discuss this in a calm and considerate manner, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMPOSERS and the other "oppose" votes here. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, a piece of clutter which is contra WP:COMPOSERS policy for very good reasons many of which are given above. It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite and transparent to engage discussion at the project page.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here; and nor does a single project have control (this article is under the umbrella of many). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Note: A single project has been selectively canvassed about this debate. Readers are invited to guess which, before visiting that link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmmm...perhaps the one with which this subject would be most strongly associated? Note also the other side. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • ((Infobox composer)) is hardly "the other side". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Not always a fan of infoboxes on biographies but I feel this would be an improvement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Worthless, reductionist techno-clutter with the usual undue weight problems with focus on trivia. Also, this is an encyclopaedia for humans, not a database for computers. --Folantin (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: the above comment was changed after another editor had referred to it. It previously said "Oppose Per obvious plus other well-argued opposes." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really thought about not getting involved in this, as I generally find the infobox wars more trouble than they're worth, but Antandrus's arguments have convinced me it's worth opposing. Aside from the "dumbing down" issue, itself undesirable in my opinion, the real issue for me is the emphasis on trivial details that Antandrus points out. This is sufficient reason to exclude the infobox. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed to adding an infobox in this particular article unless it contains only the dates and cities of his birth and death and the simple fact (not expressed as an "occupation") that he was a composer. Nothing else. Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed to adding an infobox in this particular article unless it contains only the images of Bach and his signature and lists as text only his name, the dates and cities of his birth and death and the simple fact (not expressed as an "occupation") that he was a composer. (Rewritten from above since the editor below didn't seem to understand my original wording.) Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Noted that you don't want to include his name(!), portrait, or image of his signature. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course not. I was referring solely to the fields inside the box. I would venture to say, you are the only person here who drew the inference you did. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • The portrait, name and signature image are all included within the proposed infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I've struck the first version and re-written it for you. Do let me know if you still can't understand it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – per the excellent points made by Kleinzach, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, Ewulp and Folantin, which in my view boil down to showing that this "infobox" (yes, they are scarequotes) is unhelpful, possibly downright confusing, for the interested reader. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've looked at the Bach articles on the other language wikis and haven't found one with such a long infobox - though all do have some kind of an infobox. This version in Portuguese is quite good and seems very comprehensive. I'd suggest that those who know the subject spend a bit of time working up the page, tidying, developing more, maybe taking to review, before worrying about adding an infobox. The problem with infoboxes is that it's too easy to ignore the real and important material that needs to be added to the page. It's easier to design an infobox, claim the page has a precis of the subject, than it is to really dig in, do the heavy lifting and bring the page to the state a vital article such as this deserves. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Infoboxes are standard components to most Wikipedia articles. This one will have one too, sooner or later. I think some people here don't understand what infoboxes do and what they are for. I am particularly unimpressed by terms like "reductionist" to describe them, which in my view is just a fancy way of saying "I don't like it." Jusdafax 23:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And fuck you anyway. "sooner or later" is the under current most of the supporters are hinting at, nice that you are so explicit. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, you say people are arguing "I don't like it". Perhaps some are, but the majority against are not, and have given arguments that amount to much more than that. As for your argument, it is little more than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because infoboxes exist in many articles does not mean they are valuable in all of them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as many (if not most) bio articles use them. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not an argument. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Adds summary of important information to the article. Useful in my opinion and while WP:OSE is, perhaps a valid argument, considering Wikipedia runs on consensus it feel the point that most bio article use them is a valid counter argument to it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ewulp and others. Johnbod (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose These infoboxes really give no extra useful information. My own feeling is that, in articles on Bach or Handel and their music, some editors treat the articles as glorified lists and data dumps. This concentration on rarely useful infoboxes is one aspect of that. It diverts attention from the poor quality of many articles, despite the availability of numerous high quality sources (eg Dean for Handel opera and oratorio and Dürr for Bach cantatas). Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Infoboxes are a useful tool for our readers (for whom we are supposed to be writing these articles); they summarise pertinent points about the subject. I can't think of a valid reason for not using them. Some of the reasons that are not valid reasons for not using them:

• "Avoiding infoboxes seems to be common practice for composers" - As stated above, WP:OSE is not an argument. Infoboxes do exist in so many articles that their absence from an article is out of the ordinary.
• "This infobox has the typical problems of infoboxes. (1) It gives very prominent representation to not-very-important data" - That's a problem with editing, not infoboxes, and problem editing affects all articles. It's only necessary to fill out fields that need to be filled out and if fields are populated with unimportant data, it's easy to "unpopulate".
• "The shoehorning of information into the infobox format introduces factual distortions" - In the case of Bach's children, it's the lack of information. Ironically, I had no idea that he had children before I looked at the infobox. Without an infobox it's necessary to search the prose. The three children who didn't survive to adulthood (what did happen to them? It doesn't seem to be explained) should be included in the infobox if they existed. If it makes the infobox longer, so be it. There's nothing inherently wrong with a long infobox, a lot are necessarily long in order to summarise pertinent points. Some geographical articles have infoboxes that are longer than the prose.
• "I think we should not customize WP for readers who just want to browse for trivia" - An infobox is not trivia, it's a summary of pertinent points about the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, certainly in the form proposed above (misleading treatment of children; "occupations", "style", "denomination" etc.) I could perhaps accept a much-reduced one, focussing on dates and places of life and work, because in this particular article the rather discursive style of the lead section does not give much room to such details. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose...I've never edited this article. Most of my 900 plus article starts use an infobox, but these articles are oftentimes stubs about geographical features like a glacier or mountain and the infobox allows a quick reference to the location and general attributes of the physical nature of the feature. I'm supportive of infoboxes in articles about various flora and fauna...but in bios about long dead historically important people, the infobox doesn't seem to be very useful.--MONGO 17:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor, it's natural to see information that doesn't seem useful to us, but these articles are not meant for editors, they're meant for the general internet public, who do find them useful. The average reader wants to find information quickly, and the infobox gives them a place to look for the most relevant data. It means they don't have to search through the article for the most commonly sought after information. That's one reason ((Infobox person)) is used in almost 126,000 articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In your earlier post above, you correctly identify a rather poor WP:OSE argument, but is your observation that "Infoboxes do exist in so many articles that their absence from an article is out of the ordinary" any better? How prevalent are infoboxes in biographies anyway? Try this: repeatedly hit the "random article" button at upper left, and tabulate the results for biographical articles. I can only report that the longer I stay at it, the more the results show a majority without infoboxes. It is probably not accurate to say that "their absence from an article is out of the ordinary"; it seems to be the norm. Your second point, that we shouldn't fill the infobox with not-very-important data, seems antithetical to your suggestion that we should list all twenty of Bach's children, including those who died in infancy. Perhaps also their causes of death. What reason then not to list Bach's height and weight, pets, and astrological sign, on the grounds that somebody may be curious to know these things? A long infobox is not good, according to the recommendation at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

And what are the key facts about Bach? Picture two individuals who have never heard of J.S. Bach, and who can read English at the level of an educated 12-year-old. Hand one of these students the lede paragraph of this article; hand the other one the infobox on this page. Let them study for 30 seconds, or 60 seconds if you prefer—then quiz them. Which one will have learned something meaningful? If the first reader remembers nothing more than the last sentence of the lede, "He is now generally regarded as one of the main composers of the Baroque period, and as one of the greatest composers of all time", isn't that a better result than the second reader having gleaned a few factoids—Bach is Lutheran, he went into the organ business, spent a vacation in ...Munchhausen I think it was, for a year I think it was 1607 or 1706; and he had two wives, one was named Magdelana—but remaining clueless as to why anybody should care? The important stuff of human biography is often poorly suited to infobox presentation. A field for {Counterpoint=Skilfull} or {Greatest=Yes} is not a good idea; the subjective categories such as {influenced by} are usually where infoboxes fail most miserably. Others, such as {years active}, tend toward a false precision often at odds with the text of the article (see Harold Lloyd and Louis Quinn for typical examples).

Of course the reader can read both the infobox and the lede; it may be argued that they complement each other. The problem with this is that any information in the infobox that is not trivial is usually redundant to the information in the lede. It is a waste of the reader's time, and annoying, to read the same information twice. The information in the infobox highlights the trivial. The information in the infobox is redundant to the information in the lede. It's a waste of time to read the same thing twice. Some readers may be annoyed by this. Information=trivial. Redundancy=yes. Time=wasted. Effect=annoyed reader. Reader=annoyed. Annoyance=yes.

In general, I'm puzzled by the suggestion that an article of this length is more than anybody has the time to skim. How often does the average reader get a "lifeline" call from a friend on the set of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire needing a trivia answer in 30 seconds? Ewulp (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's three comments

I suggest that even if some seem not to welcome an infobox now, we can think about a future. I would like to find out if the general ((person)) can be changed to suit our needs better, or if we have to create a more specialised one, example: |occupation=. Please keep in mind that the proposal is only a first approach, to be discussed. - Personal note: a friend died, let's be patient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach is a vital article

I believe that Bach is of wider interest than for only project composer, that's why I brought the topic here. Bach is a vital article, as other artists such as Michelangelo and Franz Kafka. Readers and editors seem to be able to deal with infoboxes there. If editors are not trusted to understand the edit-mode of an infobox, there could be a helpful comment at its beginning. I am female, I didn't need it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bach as a composer

Project composer has found solutions for infoboxes on composers for Philip Glass, Robert Stoepel and others, after interesting discussions. A key feature was to stay factual and avoid parameters such as |known_for= and |influenced=. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Single parameters

The proposal is only a suggestion, we can discuss which fields should be included, and what part of every single one should be shown. I didn't include works because they are covered well in the navbox, and a duplication seems not desirable. (Needless to say, if the navbox was transcluded in an infobox it would not have to be repeated at the bottom.) I was surprised that both Bach's wives have an article, good to know in "Women in history"-month, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what the infobox would look like if you transcluded the navbox. Did you mean simply linking to it instead? If so, using ((Johann Sebastian Bach)) with the curly brackets is a terrible way to link, it's counter-intuitive and counter the MOS. For inexperienced readers and editors, the curly brackets are quite mysterious. In any case, no, it wouldn't make the footer navboxes redundant. Believe it or not, many, many readers ignore the infobox and actually read the article, all the way to the bottom. Even if they skim, they, and most editors, are expecting the navboxes to be at the foot of the page. To avoid confusion, you'd have to transclude all three Bach navboxes into the infobox, i.e. this. For people with short attention spans, no time, inability to read English, and/or roaming data-bots (the alleged reasons why we "need" infoboxes) how do those seas of links transcluded in (or linked from) the infobox enhance their knowledge, quickly, transparently, and without distortion? Even if you transcluded all of them, they still wouldn't tell the reader that Bach had more than 4 children, or contextualise the assertion that one of his "occupations" was "singer". Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry that I used the wrong term, I meant link (I actually saw what transcluding leads to, by mistake.). Would you rather recommend to list works in an infobox? Any way to avoid their repetition (which is likely to cause errors)? - Number of children: normally I don't mention children at all, as too private information. Children with an article are a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A compromise infobox is still an infobox. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I am opposed to adding an infobox in this article unless it contains only the dates and cities of his birth and death and the fact (not expressed as an "occupation") that he was a composer. Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary deletion and reversion of archive tags

GFHandel: you have deleted my last message to this talk page. You have also reverted my closure (with archive tags). You are entitled to revert the closure, but not to delete the message. Kindly put it back, GFHandel. Now. Kleinzach 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to be hostile with bold italics, particularly as the primary cause of this whole situation was the inappropriate closure by an involved editor, not the revert thereof. As GFHandel doesn't seem to be around now, I've gone ahead and restored the comment with a note that it refers to a now-reverted closure. Tweak as necessary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, "the primary cause of this whole situation" was the proposal on 21 March that started this discussion. Was the proposal in good faith? I'll leave that question open. --Kleinzach 05:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your closure was inappropriate (not least for the reasons given by Heimstern Läufer); as is your questioning of Gerda's good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pigsonthewing in all particulars. This type of severe hostility, exhibited by several editors here, is a classic example of entrenched battleground mentality per WP:BATTLE. I notice bullying, ownership and civility issues that it appears are going to have to be rectified by the larger Wikipedia community. Jusdafax 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Bullying" is a bold accusation; diffs, please? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

On deep reflection, this discussion, including your requested diffs, is moved to ANI. Jusdafax 05:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Summary of now-reverted closure

The proposal is rejected. Only a small minority of editors wish to see an bio-infobox for this article. This is one of a series of recent attempts to introduce boxes to articles where there is an existing and ongoing consensus not to use them. This kind of proposal wastes the time of all editors, pro or anti-box, who could be contributing productively and harmoniously to the improvement of the content of the encyclopaedia. I am now archiving this. Let's put Bach first, and forget about ephemera. Let's move on. Kleinzach 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The above summary was initially accompanied by an archiving of this discussion, but was reverted by User:GFHandel, saying "You cannot close. You are involved, and discussion is ongoing." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see the evidence for the claimed "existing and ongoing consensus". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately we decide issues by weighing the arguments, not counting !votes. The weight of argument here is in favour of an infobox, if only marginally. Comments which contain no reasoning other than "I don't like it" are featherweight.

Nevertheless, I can see no movement from many on either side of the debate to seek common ground where a consensus could be found. I would therefore suggest that the debate may consensually be closed as "No Consensus", and the status quo of the article should pertain. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposal was only supported by 5 editors: Gerda Arendt, PumpkinSky, Andy Mabbett, GFHandel, Dr. Blofeld. It was rejected by 15 editors: Rwessel, Nikkimaria, Ceoil, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, Ewulp, Kleinzach, Toccata quarta, Smerus, Folantin, Heimstern Läufer, Voceditenore, Michael Bednarek, Truthkeeper. This debate did not end in no consensus. The debate ended in the unambiguous rejection of the proposal. --Kleinzach 02:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you're apparently not aware that we do not merely count votes (much less canvassed votes). Particularly since you comment beneath RexxS's post, which says quite clearly "Fortunately we decide issues by weighing the arguments, not counting !votes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that RexxS's conclusion on where the weight of the arguments lies comes down on his side. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If you follow this, well, team across many other articles, their wont is to bend thier conclusions as suits. Its an old, tired and never ending story unfortunately, and geared towards trench warfare - get a foothold somewhere (compromise infobox) and then point "but the Bach article", which is then a precedent. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a very sad story, the small militant minority here still haven't got their way, but they have succeeded in driving away the majority of serious contributors. Our music articles would have been much, much better if this problem had never existed. (I hope someone will close this now.) Kleinzach 06:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And you seriously don't think what you just described doesn't apply to yourself? I'd ask if you must live in a dream world, but then I remembered you once said you considered verismo opera to be popular music... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Kleinzach, I'd advise you not to respond to such a low, personalised and specious attemopt at baiting. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for closure or Waiting for Godot?

Well, it seems we're not talking about the actual infobox issue, but rather sniping at each other. Perhaps we could call for an uninvolved close? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer: Please close it. It's always impossible to persuade a totally uninvolved person to read, research and close a proposal, even when it is as straightforward as this one. It never works. You are as suitable a closer as anyone else around here. Kleinzach 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, I'm not willing to play fast and loose with the involvement policies. I consider those to be basically in stone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Stone is fine for monuments, but not for publishing. Kleinzach 16:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If I did, it'd just mean another reverted closure like we've already had. We'd be no closer to a real resolution than we are now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Being bold is recommended here, Waiting for Godot is not. Kleinzach 03:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't you bold and simply archive, like other discussions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: Read above, I was bold. Kleinzach 08:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed some, obviously, for private reasons metioned. I don't think this is anything official - such as a move request - that would require a formal closing. Thank you for the bold link to Bach's music under my name, btw. That - the music - is what we should think about. If is too spiritual for a box, it is also too transcendent for an article, we can only approach Bach's creative mind in humble admiration, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Kleinzach just has some weird obsessive compulsive problem that forces him to archive and close every little thing. There's no reason to formally close this discussion in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Its clear the attempt here (by some recognisable agitating special interest faces, not usually associated with composer articles, or the humanities in any form, just mark up and WMUK, and friends with each other, hello Mabbit and Rexx)] was to find a fault line, somewhere the box could be introduce and thus set a precident to beat other incumbants across the head with (speaking as somebody Rexx treathened with indef on his talk with when I opposed his friend Jack's wanton and rabid attacks in the past). This will not do given the numbers against. At least *broadly" we should enshrin that no concencus was found for composer articles, least of all *just* in this narrow instance. And even if they later find a weak fault line, that is just not an honourable tactic, and they are well advised against such an agressive method of foot setting in the future. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is hardly the way to encourage new editors here, Ceoil. I am totally uninvolved, and don't recall editing with anyone commenting and/or working on this article. New voices, even if you don't agree with them, must be dealt with in a civil manner. Further, given the astonishingly uncivil and profane "welcome" that I have received above, there appears to be some serious problems in play per WP:OWN here. Frankly, I think other eyes are called for to examine what appears, at first glance, to be an insular and self-congratulatory mindset of exclusion, and I believe that sooner or later a well-advertised Rfc may well be required to clarify matters. Jusdafax 02:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) There was an Rfc in 2010, see here. Matters have been clarified repeatedly since at least 2007, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates. Jusdafax : Perhaps it would have been prudent to have read the considerable literature on this issue before starting the ANI on Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes? --Kleinzach 08:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, Ceoil has never edited the article either (like Andy but unlike Gerda perhaps), but there is a roving campaign, which often gets bad-tempered, to add infoboxes to articles that don't have them & whose local editors don't want them, in which this is just one incident. Johnbod (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Where local editors don't want them" Really? How are the views of "local editors" to be determined, without discussions such as the one stated above, in accordance with the outcomes of the RfC called for by people from the classical music projects? BTW, there is a roving campaign, which often gets bad-tempered, to prohibit infoboxes in articles whose local editors do want them. Also, you're welcome to post a link to any policy saying only people who have previously edited an article may express a view on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples please? All the recent ones I know, except this one, have been initiated by people adding an infobox, without prior discussion of course. But it's no good accusing someone of owning an article if, like me, you & Ceoil, they have never edited it. Of course we regulars know who's who. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples, John? Start with the history of Peter Planyavsky and tell me who is the "local editor" and whether she wanted an infobox? Incidentally, do you really insist that editors should have to have prior discussion before making an edit? - has somebody scrapped WP:BOLD while I wasn't looking? --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:BOLD! Let's remind ourselves, since it's obviously a long time since some people read it: "Just do it! (With civility, please!)....This does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! .......but please be careful! Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly. Of course, any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, usually painlessly. It is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted or edited further. ....Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." It doesn't sound much like Andy's way of carrying on, does it? Peter Planyavsky has a pretty simple history with 4 main editors, really 2 editing text and 2 copyediting, all of whome you will be familiar with. Johnbod (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Further examples include the many (into the hundreds, IIRC) of articles with HTML comments enjoining editors not to add an infobox, because of a project's guidelines (even though such guidelines are non-binding, with the status of an essay), or not to do so without first consulting with that project. Such comments have been referred to by members of the project as "instructions"; thereby asserting ownership, even if those editors have not made an edit to the individual article concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question, "How are the views of 'local editors' to be determined?", might the invisible comment in this article ("Please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes") serve? Why not assume good faith and take the music editors' word for it that the note is intended as a courtesy to those who might waste valuable time placing infoboxes where the most active editors regard them as undesirable clutter which they will surely revert? Perhaps resulting in many hours of pleasant talk page repartee, but unproductive toward the goal of article improvement. As noted above, "the RfC called by members of the project concluded that 'WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.'" Perhaps the Project regards the hidden comment as a helpful guideline; if it has saved even one newbie from a discouraging reversion, that's all to the good, so far as it goes. Possibly such comments by their nature violate the spirit or even the letter of WP:OWN, but that would seem to be a matter for discussion in another forum. Isn't this page intended to be used for proposing improvements to the Johann Sebastian Bach article? Ewulp (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)