Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dancing to death

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

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

Also, take a look at the film They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, where a person dancing themselves to death is a plot feature. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Rite of Spring
Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 first production
Native title	Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps
Choreographer	Vaslav Nijinsky
Music	Igor Stravinsky
Premiere	29 May 1913 (1913-05-29) Théâtre des Champs-Élysées
Original ballet company	Ballets Russes
Design	Nicholas Roerich

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

"Why" is not important. This looks good to me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

ps: Isn't the native title in Russian? - The French one of the premiere is just above in the pic caption, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've changed to show both common non-English names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we add the two-letter language abbreviation somehow, or say otherwise that it is Russian and French? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Alternative

The Rite of Spring
by Igor Stravinsky
Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 first production
Native name	Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps
Premiere
Date	29 May 1913 (1913-05-29)
Location	Théâtre des Champs-Élysées

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

A net detriment to this article. The image that goes at the top File:NikolaiRoerichRite1.jpg is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect. Original is meaningless. Original what? The title under which this work is premiered is Le Sacre du printemps. You've just used up the space which could have been used to display the image as it was intended to be displayed and replaced with it with large striped construction containing the exact same information (albeit misleadingly expressed) as is in the first three sentences of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The width of thumbnail images in articles is a user-controlled setting; what you see may not be what other editors see. "Original" means "Original name". If that's not a suitable label, a change can be proposed on the infobox's talk page. What is "misleadingly expressed"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Original" label changed to "Native name" in template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox ballet}} had an option for enlarging the image, and indeed it is enlarged in the current article. This one doesn't. The title information is not congruent with the style of articles used for classical compositions. Native name is ridiculous as a field, and misleading because it makes no distinction between the name under which it premiered and the Russian name. If you want to change the template to allow displaying the image in a larger than default thumbnail size, and fix the way the titles are expressed, do it, but an infobox that looks like it does now is in my opinion, a net detriment to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

[Sorry, missed this] "Native name" is accepted in a wide variety of our infoboxes; but of course you can either edit the template, if you have a better suggestion, or ask for one on its talk page. Likewise, you could suggest that image sizing is added - though I would reiterate my earlier point about user preferences; and add that on my system, the images in each of the infoboxes are showing at the same size. Few of us see the same thing when we look at any given article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is up to the people who propose adding the infobox to this Featured Article to try and make it acceptable. I would never propose adding one here, and I have no intention of wasting my time "improving" a template that frankly needs a complete re-write and in my opinion adds nothing to this article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I understood you to be proposing generic improvements, rather than those aimed at this article alone, and presumed that you would be interested in doing so in the same manner in which you have recently, and helpfully, done so for {{Infobox opera}}. I'll happily make technical adjustments, but, as there, you have a better idea of the required changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

!Voting

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

The fact that this was discussed before, by small number of editors, does prevent a new discussion, especially with different editors involved. The December 2012 discussion also seems to have been misdirected by false claims ("it it a long-standing convention that Classical Music articles in general... do not have an infobox", etc.). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion (Oppose) above. I also think it is useful when a topic has been raised before to note that in a current discussion, and did so. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

PS I erred above - there were five editors opposed to an infobox in December 2012 and one in favor. I have placed the same notice on each of their talk pages, inviting them to participate in the discussion here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Rite of Spring
by Igor Stravinsky
Part of Nicholas Roerich's designs for Diaghilev's 1913 first production
Brief summary Native name Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps Premiere Date 29 May 1913 (1913-05-29) Location Théâtre des Champs-Élysées Performers

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

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

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

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

I think this touches on a key point: the Ballet Project tends to use a ballet info-box. This is not a problem when the article is about a ballet by one choreographer, e.g. Ondine (ballet), but is, IMO, dreadfully misleading to the reader when applied to a ballet score that dozens of choreographers have used, as in The Nutcracker. I think The Rite is very much in the latter category. – Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with you Tim. I think what I'm personally looking for is something like this but with a bit of detail, about composer and history, available on demand. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Comment: "We as the authors ..." - I as an author like to serve both the reader who looks for a quick information as the one who wants to study the details, - I am obviously not part of that "we". I would prefer not to vote yet but think about content and presentation. I think {{Infobox musical composition}} fits this one better. The lead picture could be a different one, for example the one shown on the Main page, with the scene design presented later in the article, in performance history. If the scene image is misleading in an infobox, it's misleading for the article also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You quote me but use it to describe your own view, which doesn't quite make it a quote does it. Everything one needs to know quickly can be accessed from the first few lines or paragraphs of the lede. That makes it repetitive and redundant. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I may have language problems. If you say "We as the authors ..." and give your own view, I feel that I don't belong to that "we" but still think I am an author. More important: I read here again and again that the infobox is repetitive/redundant. Yes, of course it is, it is has to be or would be wrong, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Or you may not. I know exactly what you mean. And I agree with what you are saying. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I have struck my ignorant "we" comment. I can assure you that your English is good, and that it was my "assume everybody shares my view" view that caused the problem there. I also want to cater for the "need quick information now" community, but I prefer to give that information within the lead section. Also, to take up a point I read earlier (which I struggle to find now), I am wholly in favour of keeping the current image. It is stunning and should not be swapped (IMO) ;) --Cassianto^Talk 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

There may be some merit in agreeing a recommended general layout for ballet articles, as is already the case for opera articles. But this has to be flexible; each work has its own circumstances and character, and emphases will differ. I would strongly oppose any kind of robotic approach to article-writing; in fact I would retire on the spot if such a thing were enforced, which I am sure is not your intention. However, let's stick to the infobox issue for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Yankeecook has some very good ideas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So far we seem to have a consensus so far as an info-box for the Rite of Spring/ article is concerned. More generally, there is a generic ballet info-box template {{Infobox Ballet}} but however much it were tweaked it isn't obvious how it could cope with the very valid distinctions you make between the score and Mr A's and Ms B's productions of the ballet etc. That, perhaps, is a matter for another page. Tim riley (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose because unless the choice of which infobox to use is obvious, which it is not in this case, infoboxes are contentious. See Talk: Soviet Union. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Support When readers go to a Wikipedia article, they expect to see an infobox summarizing the important information. The argument that readers should read the entire text of the article instead of just an infobox stems from personal pride. Although this article is high-quality we should be no means be forcing readers to go through the whole thing if they do not want to. We can easily create an accurate infobox that summarizes the content of this article without misinforming readers. The notion that this will hinder the quality of the article is nonsense. The notion that the classical music wikiproject can thwart community-wide standards on classical music articles is also nonsense. ThemFromSpace 23:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If I may ask, what Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that this (or any article) must have an infobox? The Manual of Style on infoboxes says in part "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." Finally, if you look at the suggested infoboxes on this page, almost all of the material in them is already in the first two sentences of the lead, so your assertion that readers "should read the entire text of the article instead of just an infobox" is nonsense - you might want to read WP:LEAD anbout the lead being a summary of the whole article too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose box. Nothing in any of the drafts provided here is both (a) important enough to be at the top of the page and (b) easier taken in tabulated form than through a well-written concise piece of prose. The argument that infoboxes help to give a reader a quick, at-a-glance overview of the most important fact falls flat on its face in this article: the existing lead paragraph is far superior in offering the reader this overview, much more quickly, much more elegantly, much more efficiently. Why would I want to read these things jerking my eyes from left to right, left to right, left to right in a succession of table headings and table content, when I can read it much more naturally in well-flowing prose? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose box. For all the usual reasons. --Kleinzach 06:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox facts

The Rite of Spring
Pictures of Pagan Russia in Two Parts
by Igor Stravinsky
Dancers in the original production
Native name	Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps
Genre	Ballet
Composed	1910 (1910) – 1913 (1913): Paris, Ustilug and Clarens
Movements	13 in two parts
Scoring	Large orchestra
Premiere
Date	29 May 1913 (1913-05-29)
Location	Théâtre des Champs-Élysées
Conductor	Pierre Monteux
Performers	Ballets Russes

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

Hi Gerda, I think that seems a little bit "cart-before-the-horse" really, and a drain on everyone's scant available time. Why not discuss the merits or otherwise of inclusion of an infobox, rather than spending countless amount of time discussing individual fields of something that probably won't even get onto the page? If it is agreed that an infobox is a "good idea" for the page, then the discussion of the minutiae can take place once people are happy with the concept. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I really think to have the repeated "no infobox here" arguments for every article is a waste of everyone's time. (This is not even a composer.) Nobody is obliged to participate in one or the other kind of waste. - It is tricky to determine if an infobox is a good idea if you don't know what will be in that box. - I will not waste my time calling people to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we already know what will be in the infobox: an overly small image sitting on top of the bullet-pointed contents of the lead. The particular sub-species of infobox is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things; the concept of overly-simplified tid-bits sitting like a malignant growth in the top right-hand corner of the article is the bigger hurdle to get over. - SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's notable that (once again) the opposition to an infobox for this article rests mostly on arguments (many of them facile) against infoboxes per se ("waste space", "repetition", "cater for the lazy reader", "[leave] room for the maximum amount of text", "beautifully crafted article", "overly simplified", malignant growth") which are not about the article in question. The use of an infobox here may have been out!voted, but it hasn't been out-argued. Those who oppose the use of infoboxes at all, or for whole classes of articles are again invited to raise an RfC to prohibit them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat unsurprisingly, I think your summary does a disservice to those above who have put forward arguments. I also note that you haven't put forward any arguments for the inclusion of an infobox. Rather than besmirch the thoughts of others, perhaps you could positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed unsurprising. Response to your question, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky
Dancers in the original 1913 production
Quick summary Native name Russian: Vesna svyashchennaya French: Le Sacre du printemps Form Ballet Composed 1910 (1910) – 1913 (1913): Paris, Ustilug and Clarens Movements 13 in two parts Scoring Symphony orchestra Premiere Date 29 May 1913 (1913-05-29) Location Théâtre des Champs-Élysées Conductor Pierre Monteux Performers Ballets Russes

(ec) Not necessarily so, - in reply to SchroCat. I don't like the collapsed section variety, but it is possible, see for example Little Moreton Hall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's a such a small image. If you could enlarge to the size of the one on the current page, there may be favour to be found with some. I don't like infoboxes on a number of articles, but when they are foisted onto articles, this is a compromise that may work, but only if the image size can be sorted appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you actually look at Little Moreton Hall? It can be done, but would be a waste of space here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I did. It's not as good as a straight image of a decent size, but it's a compromise that some will be happy with. - SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Presumably, she says that says that because Wikipedia is not a democracy; we do not decide things by votes. You'll notice that I referred at the head of this section, to "suggested content". It is precisely so that such matters can be thrashed out that I stated this discussion. Taking the dates as an example, I can see no reference in the article body to any music being written before 1911; if it is there, it's too opaque - it's certainly not in the lede - and having the correct dates in an infobox will enable them to be quickly located. I also note that this "beautifully crafted article" includes a table naming the components of the work, called movements (the word "tableaux" does not appear in the article), which are thirteen in number. Will you be removing that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As per my comment above, could you please positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? You wish for the article to change: perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider the proposed infobox to be an improvement? - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice any suggestion, above, that we should scrap info-boxes for all ballet articles. I think they are quite helpful for certain ballets, but not for all. I am unsure where best to pursue this, but it seems to me that unlike, say, operas, where Wagner's Siegfried is Wagner's Siegfried, there are four different types of ballet article. Ones like this, where the piece has become better known as a concert work; ones with original music subsequently used by many later choreographers (e.g. The Nutcracker); ones with original music where there is only one notable version (e.g. Ondine); and ones using existing music, (e.g. Façade). Each of these has, it seems to me, different requirements, and the ballet info-box template is not up to coping with the various permutations. Perhaps it would be better to pursue this on the relevant template talk page? Tim riley (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed be the best place to make constructive proposals to improve the infobox; and I would encourage you to do so. That doesn't, though preclude this discussion from continuing - and, indeed, informing such proposals - in the meantime. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think User:RexxS put it well in his comment at Talk:Frank Matcham. My points in that debate are apposite, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You think that we should have an {{infobox person}} template on this article? That is what the discussion was about for that article. I asked you about this article, not Matcham, or Solti, or any other article, but this article. If you want to change this article, then you'll have to make the appropriate comments in the appropriate location (ie. here). - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your fatuous response suggests that you haven't read (or remembered) the points made by RexxS in that discussion, which were not specific to {{Infobox person}}. It's rather discourteous of you not to do so, given that a reference to it was my answer to your earlier question; it's perfectly reasonable for me to respond with a reference to another page, rather than to cut and paste from it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, Could you cut the ad hominem points please. You have been asked, quite civily, to provide your reasons for the inclusion of an infobox for this article. If you do not want to take that rather simple and obvious step, then there is no point in going on further, especially if you are simply going to insult others for no reason. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem in my response, and no "insult for no reason"; and I have given you my reply to your question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is, as I am sure you and everyone else can quite clearly see. You have not concentrated on an argument (any argument at all, seemingly), and instead turned to insulting others. I'll ask again, can you provide, on this page, your reasons for the inclusion on an infobox for this article. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My response is above, also in my reply to Yankeecook, above; taking a leaf out of others' books; I don't intend to repeat it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Andy Mabbett, what's your point in making frequent quotes of "beautifully crafted article?" That is a phrase I used earlier, do you have a problem with that? --Cassianto^Talk 17:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Frequent? Hardly! I'm very happy for you, though, that you feel that way about the article. However, that's not a reason not to have an infobox. What is your view as to the apparently erroneous inclusion of a list of 13 movements in the article? Did you make a mistake allowing its inclusion, or is Yankeecook wrong to call it a "factual and/or misleading error"? BTW, I've put your comment in the correct place in the sequence of replies here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Yankeecook, for your detailed reply, below. I've fixed the dates, as a start, so presumably that part of your objection no longer stands? We can address your other concerns as and when our colleagues give their views. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that, in a section below, Brianboulton has debunked Yankeecook's concerns about the use of "movements", so presumably the part of his objection to an infobox on those grounds no longer stands? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in concluding that there is no sign of consensus, or any prospect of one, to overturn the status quo by inserting an info-box? If so, can we close this discussion and move on? Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right, Tim. So far, (and despite asking several times) I have seen absolutely no substantive points for the inclusion of an infobox, just a vague desire to see one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Close. Mr Mabbett can still offer no rational as to why he wants one, were as there are a number of valid reasons why the rest of us don't want one. I shall not repeat myself Andy, so if you want to see my thoughts on them, read the thread. --Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly for you, an involved editor, to decide to close an ongoing discussion on the basis that opposing comments are somehow invalid. Also, you appear to have overlooked my question to you, just above, about the 13 movements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions about the content are not relevant to this discussion, and should be pursued in a separate section elsewhere on this page. For present purposes, I am asking if there is a consensus to close this discussion about inserting an info-box. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is, at the time of writing, under the heading "Infobox facts". That's what my question is about, so please don't try to tell me it's not relevant. Do, though feel free to answer it: What is your view as to the apparently erroneous inclusion of a list of 13 movements in the article? Was it a mistake to allow its inclusion, or is Yankeecook wrong to call it a "factual and/or misleading error"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The clue is in "Infobox facts" Andy. It doesn't say "Infobox facts and content". --Cassianto^Talk 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a particularly inane comment. I'm trying to determine whether the fact in the proposed infobox is correct or not. You Still haven't answered my question to you on that point; this is now the third time of asking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

To discuss the content of an unused infobox which is itself is under discussion here is nonsensical and a complete waste of time. --Cassianto^Talk 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your disdain for Wikipedia's consensus-building process noted. Nonetheless, the list of movements is already in the article, though it's alleged there are no such things. We need to determine whether that's correct or not, regardless of whether we have an infobox. What's your view as to the veracity of the movements list and Yankeecook's criticisms relating to them (fourth time of asking)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of those who have weighed in with an opinion are opposed to including an infobox, which is a common way of finding consensus here. I am not opposed to infoboxes per se (many of the FAs I have nominated have an infobox, but the area of a state park or length of a bridge is easier to summarize in one line than a musical composition is). My philosophical opposition to the use of an infobox in this article is that 1) it tries to reduce complexities to overly simplified one-liners, and 2) that it gives undue weight to some things and ignores others.

To cite an example, in the proposed infoboxes the English name does not give the subtitle "Pictures of Pagan Russia in Two Parts" (which also somewhat addresses the whole parts / movements debate). Another example is that the article makes clear that compositional work was done in Ustilug and Clarens and Paris, but the proposed infobox reduces this to Ustilug and Clarens. More importantly, why should the infobox give the place of composition at all? If the lead is a summary of the whole article, and the lead does not mention this, why should the infobox? The article currently mentions Ustilug only twice and Clarens only three times (all in just two paragraphs). Or why should the conductor at the premier be listed in the infobox, when he is not in the lead? Before I read this article, when I thought of The Rite of Spring I thought of three things - it was one of the best known and earliest "modern" orchestral works, its premiere caused a near riot, and Disney used it for the dinosaurs in Fantasia. Two of these are in the lead (sorry dinos), but none are in any of the proposed Infoboxes and I am not sure how to include them in an infobox.

When I look at the proposed infoboxes, almost all the information in them is already in the first two sentences of the lead: The Rite of Spring (French: Le Sacre du printemps, Russian: «Весна священная», Vesna svyashchennaya) is a ballet and orchestral concert work by the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky. It was written for the 1913 Paris season of Sergei Diaghilev's Ballets Russes company; the original choreography was by Vaslav Nijinsky, with stage designs and costumes by Nicholas Roerich. If someone cannot read the first two sentences, are they really going to get a fuller picture of the subject from an "infobox"? And since most infoboxes have many possible fields which can be filled in, who is to stop well-intentioned editors from adding other "information" which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not even be included in the recognized summary of the article (the lead)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for thoughts about the content! (I was ready to stay away from other arguments.) The proposed infobox was a start, to be developed. We don't have to mention composition time(s) at all, of course, could just mention a year, or could go into greater detail, mentioning dates and places in more detail. - We could specify the scoring in detail if wanted. (I would want it, see BWV 39), but started simple. - I will insert the missing "genre" parameter in the template. - We could mention that the movements are called differently, and the parts "tableaux", if that is in the article. - We could give the subtitle and the titles of the parts. - "Best-known", riot, dinos: in previous discussions we were told to stay strictly factual. Otherwise all these things could appear as comment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, you confirm my worst fears when you say "The proposed infobox was a start, to be developed". At the beginning of this discussion I gave as one of my reasons for opposing an infobox my knowledge, based on experience, that editors, well-intentioned or not, will seek to "develop" the infobox by adding information to it, often without knowledge or awareness of its accuracy or relevance. I have seen absurdities in infoboxes that make me wince. The aim of providing a service to the casual reader is laudable, but the infobox is not the only way of achieving this. It is for this exact purpose that in articles I write or expand I always pay particular attention to the lead, and even more attention to the first few sentences. I know that many, probably most, readers will want an overview rather than an in-depth study, and that is what I seek to provide for them. The idea that our readers are generally so lazy or prose-averse that they won't read a few lines but have to be fed attenuated bullet-points has no foundation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to have raised fears. - As you know, infoboxes are not for the lazy readers, but for those who seek quick information, for those with impaired vision or language capabilities, for machines, for those who need structured data. I am sorry for the absurdities you had to suffer, but tell me if this one is absurd. By develop I mean quality ("genre" instead of "form"), not quantity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is in fact scientific research that shows that people - even if they then read more of an article - read infoboxes. and RexxS has noted in the comment which I cited above, that parter organisations such as Google also make use of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The remarkable thing about Wikis is that they are editable - and lo!, Paris is now in the lower two infoboxes. You could have done that, too, in fewer characters and less time than you spent complaining about its omission. The same goes for the subtitle, if other editors feel it should be included. This is what Gerda meant by development; and I will again remind you that I started this section by talking about suggested infobox content, which I put here for discussion. That is the Wikipedia way in which we are supposed to reach consensus, and move forward. That said, please can you tell us where the fact that the work was partly written in Paris appears in the first two sentences, or lede, or even body of the "beautifully crafted" article? (Or for that matter, where in the lede or first two sentences are the dates and other locations of composition?) Once again, this is far from apparent - though an infobox can help to make it so. As for your closing remark: since most articles can be edited by anyone, who is to stop well-intentioned editors from adding other "information" which may or may not be accurate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I will ignore your unpleasant sneer about the "beautifully crafted article" (not my words or claim), and your attempts to provoke yet more discord. Where have I "complained" about the omission of Paris – are you confusing me with someone else? In my view the question how much of the composition was written at what precise address, etc. is, in the scale of things, a pretty unimportant snippet, not worth arguing about and certainly not leadworthy material. It is true that editors add inaccurate and/or inappropriate information into the text of articles as well as to infoboxes, and it's already a well-nigh impossible job keeping track of these, which is why over time nearly all WP articles degenerate. But that's another matter. Andy, for the sake of harmony I wish I could agree with you over something, but the fact is that you have not won this argument and have not established a consensus for an infobox for this article, whatever your opinion of your opponents' arguments. If you choose, you can go on designing formats for notional infoboxes that will never appear, but there might be more productive uses for your time. That, however, is a matter for you. Brianboulton (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And I shall ignore your imagined sneers and provocation. As can be seen from the indentation, I was replying to Ruhrfisch, not you; so the unfortunate confusion is yours, not mine (I did reply to you, but that was a comment about the evidence that people do use and read infoboxes). Since he raised the issue of locations of composition, please address your concerns on that matter to him (you'll note that neither of the infoboxes I proposed includes it). At least we agree that an article in general has the same potential issues with inaccurate content as has an infobox. That is and always was a non-issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussion?

I'm sorry, but this is utterly counter-productive. We are going round in circles debating absolutely nothing at the moment. Andy is refusing to put forward any arguments about the inclusion of an infobox on this article, and he has now reverted to rather silly insults to others. Before this disintegrates into a further morass of silliness, and before Andy moves even more closer to a topic block on infoboxes, can we draw a line under this pointless, oft-repeated nonsense and move onto something constructive? - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that what began as a reasonably civil discussion has degenerated into a form of verbal fisticuffs. It is pretty clear what the consensus is, so far as this article is concerned, and I see little point in continuing the argument unless someone has something genuinely new to contribute. There is no possibility of an infobox being imposed on the article against the clearly expressed consensus, so I suggest the matter rests there, for the present. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that since posting that, you (and three others, including me) have commented in the above sections, any neutral observer will see though this as an attempt to shut down ongoing discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. I have responded to a discussion, below, that has nothing to do with infoboxes. I felt it necessary to reply to Gerda's comments, to which she provided a civil reply. I also took time, just now, to reply to your provocative and inaccurate posting, above. You can continue to whine about efforts to close the discussion – losers always do that. People will continue to react if you insult or misrepresent them, but the argument is going nowhere. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The only "bollocks" is that you have continued to post in a debate which you also claim is over, as in this edit of yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is my count on the supports and opposes on the original proposal by Andy Mabbett, which was "I propose that we add either {{Infobox ballet}} (see example with suggested content, above) or, if that is not deemed suitable, {{Infobox musical composition}}." Please note that the section titled "!Voting" is 7 explicit opposes to 1 explicit support, but I assumed the positions of 2 other editors who weighed in decisively on one side or the other, and mark them with an asterisk below). Please note that 7:1 is 87.5% opposed, while 8:2 is 80.0% opposed, and the previous discussion back in 2012 was 5:1 or 83.3% opposed. To me this is a clear rejection of the original proposal. Tallies follow:

Oppose: 8 (Ruhrfisch, Brianboulton, Schrocat, Tim riley, Ssilvers, Cassianto, Yankeecook, Voceditenore*)

Support: 2 (Martinevans123, Andy Mabbett*)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not voting, I said some things can't be decided by voting. (I respect the wishes of the main editors, with a bit of envy.) I spoke at the closing request, no need to say the same here ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

83.3% down to 72.7%? So we are making progress! Still, what part of WP:NOTVOTE escaped you? You may also note that Gerda made other proposals, which are being discussed, and which have merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies to Gerda - I have adjusted the totals and percentages above accordingly (so it is now a change from 83.3% to 80%, which are the same within the limits of significant figures for the small number of editors involved. As to Andy Mabbett's question, I was the one who used the header "!Voting" which means "not voting". Since the original proposal was to add an infobox, and roughly 4/5ths of editors who have !voted are in opposition to this, I see this as consensus not to add an infobox. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You reworking of the figures to exclude Gerda (and - quelle surprise - rig the figures in your favour) is asinine, and misses the point that not only did she not vote, but nobody did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How may more times do I have to say that I am not interested in voting math. Sunday sermon on my user: "To do good and to communicate forget not", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I originally included everyone who !voted (87.5% opposed) and then on my own added three who did not !vote, but whose positions on the matter I assumed (making it 72.7% opposed, which was worse for my (op)position). I made my assumptions clear, and after Gerda posted that she was not "voting", I removed her from the counts. If Gerda wants to be included, she need only say so, and I will add her back in. Andy, you were happy enough with the apparent trend in percentages ("So we are making progress!") before I removed Gerda (despite also having read WP:NOTVOTE). The number of editors involved is small, but I was trying to show that the overall proportion of those who oppose inclusion of an infobox has remained at roughly three-fourths to four-fifths, no matter how it is counted or when it is asked.

Our choice is either to include an infobox or not. Since we are dealing with a binary choice (should some sort of infobox be included in this article or not?), it is difficult to see how a true compromise can be arrived at. (I doubt anyone wants to include an infobox only 2 days a week, or roughly 28% of the time ;-) ). The article made it through a PR and FAC without any calls for adding an infobox, and the status quo / established consensus is not to include an infobox (nor is there any requirement to include an infobox in this article or any FA). To overturn that consensus requires more support than those in favor of including an infobox have yet been able to show. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the phrase "!vote" is that it describes comments which are not votes. You persist in treating them, wrongly, as votes. I have stated that we should aim to reach consensus, not compromise, though your presentation of this as a binary choice is an oversimplification, given that there are many different possible ways to include an infobox. As I have pointed out below, Those editors who concern themselves with the "featured article " process have repeatedly made clear that they do not consider the inclusion, or not, of an infobox as part of that process and their deliberations. The achievement of FA status is therefore immaterial to deliberations about whether and how to include an infobox. There is no consensus, "established" or otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Because, as you well know, the FA process ensures an article "follows the style guidelines". As you are further aware, the relevant style guidelines state that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". There is a consensus that infoboxes are not required, and this article sits happily within that established consensus. It is disingenuous to try and twist the status quo to try and show there is no consensus, when there clearly is one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing that you quote contradicts what I said in the comment to which you reply; and I'm not twisting anything. Ruhrfisch referred to an 8:3 split;. That does not represent a consensus; and neither does "status quo". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It represents a consensus on here Andy, inasmuch that there seems to be 11 people involved, and eight of those are in favour of no bloody infobox! In a minute you will be requesting a consensus to keep open this boring infobox discussion! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"That does not represent a consensus" At long bloody last - you've finally admitted the obvious plain truth, which is that there is no consensus for change. I'm happy to close this lengthy, tedious and circular waste of everyone's time on your final statement of the obvious. Time to do something constructive, rather than continue building up the pointless wordcount. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving Content ...

With an eye to improving the accuracy of content on this page, may I suggest the following? Dates of composition: No less an authority than Richard Taruskin (Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions) states on p.884 that Stravinsky had begun compositional work on The Rite in 1910. Stravinsky himself stated (quoted in many places in the literature) that the idea ocurred to him even before he had completed The Firebird. Place of composition: Stravinsky is known to have worked on the score at several times in several places, including Ustilug during the summers of 1911 and 1912 (according to Stephen Walsh, and Clarens during the winter and spring of 1912-1913. Form: Again, I suggest that ballet is not a "form," but rather a "genre"; and this needs more philosophical clarification, as Tim riley also observes. Tableaux / Movements: There are several issues with the table in the article. First, "Original French" overlooks that the "original" was in Russian. (Which, alas, I do not read.) The French titles given in the table do agree, however, with several editions of the score. Various English translations (of both the Russian and French) have appeared ... they are not wholly satisfactory, but they have at least the "authority of tradition." May I suggest the addition of Tableau to Part (on the authority of the score)? As to "movements": use of this term seems misleading to me. Symphonies and much chamber music have "movements." Stravinsky's later ballet Pulcinella (among others) has "movements". But The Rite doesn't -- nor does Petrushka. Taruskin and others refer to "episodes". Is that satisfactory to all?

Then there is the matter of the "Synposis." Richard Taruskin provides several versions (Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions), pp.874 to 880. As Taruskin observes, "All of these synopses differ slightly and all of them contain unique details ..."(p.879). This should be noted in the article; in my opinion the current "synopsis" needs to be revised somewhat. (For example: the "piping" clearly refers to the bassoon / cor anglais music in the "Introduction". See Stravinsky's reference to dudki (pipes) in his earliest description of the scenario, Taruskin, p.873.) Would paragraph form (rather than a table) be a better way of presenting this information?

I'll be happy to make these corrections / amplifications if there are no substantive objections ... Yankeecook (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Yankeecook. No objection from me, though I'll bow to others' experience with regard to such things as the use of the word "movements", once they answer. I'll change the dates, as a start, in the draft infoboxes, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Yankeecook: The argument about the use of the word "movements" is a pointless distraction. Terushkin and others may refer to "episodes"; Van den Toorn and others use "movements". Other authorities, e.g. Hill, refer to "sections". I don't think that any of these experts were choosing their particular words to deliberate effect; they are all easily-understood terms referring to the same thing, and no word is any more right than any other. To create a point of issue out of this is unnecessary hair-splitting. Some of your other suggestions look well-founded, though at this stage I would strongly argue that the table form is the best presntation of The Rite's structure and I would strongly oppose its replacement by a prose paragraph. I have devoted hundreds of hours to this article, and I'd like a little more time to think about the changes you propose. These are issues quite separate from the infobox argument that is disfiguring this page, and I would prefer to wait for that discussion to end, so that positive proposals for improving the article can be considered coolly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton, for your thoughtful reply. Thanks, too, for your hundreds of hours working on this article which is, in general, superb. Please note, too, that I have joined you in your opposition to an "infobox" ... and I think that Ruhrfisch's comments of 1 June 2013 (above) are also particularly apposite. Thanks, also, for acknowledging that some of my suggestions are "well-founded." But please don't accuse me of "hair-splitting" in the matter of "movements." I am happy with the concept of "sections"; I am happy with the concept of "episodes"; I am not happy with the concept of "movements," even though that term may have been employed by significant scholars in the field. (I'm pretty sure you don't really mean that "no word is any more right than any other.") I'll be happy to debate this question with you in another place. But please note that my comments about "movements/sections/episodes" was intended to support your concerns about an infobox. My point, simply put, is this: "movements" has resonances with other genres (symphony, string quartet, etc. etc.) that are not applicable to "The Rite of Spring." Further, "movements" has implications that (to paraphrase your comment) are all too easily mis-understood. These terms, as commonly used in musical analysis do not mean the same thing ... But let's leave this for another time and place. Meanwhile, how do we settle the "infobox question," if not by vote? Yankeecook (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

One always hopes that fellow editors will raise issues with articles in order to improve them, rather than to try to score points in a different argument; perhaps disappointment should be expected. Nonetheless, if there is an error in the article, overlooked by those who have spent so many hours working on it and those who have subsequently reviewed it, it should be fixed sooner, rather than later. That said, if a term has been "employed by significant scholars in the field", then that, not your personal preference, has precedence. regarding your final question, you might like to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does this instantly get personalized? Let's return to "first principles" for a moment. This article is about Igor Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring," not primarily about critical views of it (unless so identified). I have the 1921 score before me. Nowhere in the score does Stravinsky refer to "movements", "sections", or "episodes". He does, however, divide the work into two "parties" (in French) ... perhaps a Russian-speaker will identify the Russian term. Beyond that, the score does indeed identify various -- divisions / sections / portions / episodes -- to indicate how the music corresponds to the scenario. These "are" what Stravinsky calls them: in some cases, "danse", in some cases "jeux", in one case "procession", in other cases they simply have "descriptive identifiers" (Augurs printanières, for example) ... etc. They are not in any accepted sense "movements", and they are certainly not numbered in the score, as implied by the table in the article. My understanding is that Wiki articles are supposed to be devoid of POV ... and my point is precisely that to impose a structure on a musical work (even inadvertantly) is to impose an unacknowledged point of view. Van den Toorn is entitled to call the divisions "movements" if he likes ... even "significant scholars" can be wrong ... but it seems to me that if this Wiki article is not to adopt Van den Toorn's POV (covertly), then there needs to be a mention -- with proper citations -- of the fact that there is disagreement among "significant scholars in the field" as to the nature of these smaller "portions" of the score.

Could I please ask that, rather than attack me, you consider what I've written to be a POV-neutral attempt to improve this article by focusing on what is actually in the musical score ... Again, my central point is that "movements" has implications that are likely to be misunderstood in this context. In fact, as Movement (music) states in its opening sentence: "A movement is a self-contained part of a musical composition ..." (Emphasis mine.) Can anybody make a case that the various individual divisions of "The Rite" are self-contained? Je crois que non!

As to "not a democracy" and "voting" ... how, then, is "consensus" to be achieved? Yankeecook (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear after more than 8,500 words, above, that there is no consensus for a change. Perhaps the cleanest thing would be to refer the page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Tim riley (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a closure at the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that might be construed as "getting personalised" is my reference to your "I am not happy with..." (emphasis in original); it is not unreasonable to point out that such feelings do not trump cited sources. You have not been "attacked". In the light of your further arguments, I remain neutral on whether or not we should refer to "movements"; but to do so is not - as you presented it - a fault of the infobox, when the article already calls them that. Your final question is answered at WP:CONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am shifting the discussion about "movements" to a new thread, to separate it from the sterile "debate" about infoboxes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Distinguishing between article content and the info-box question

Discussion about substantive content will clearly go on here, which is duly proper, of course. Meanwhile, does anyone object if I refer the seemingly-endless pow-pow about info-boxes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Tim riley (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Aargh! So sorry, SchroCat. Riley slow on the uptake as usual. Tim riley (talk)

Another Infobox Comment

Infoboxes are often matters of contention. If anyone doubts that, see Talk: Soviet Union. If there isn't consensus as to what the infobox should be, then maybe there shouldn't be one. This article was good enough for Featured Article without an infobox. I suggest leaving it alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Those editors who concern themselves with the "featured article " process have repeatedly made clear that they do not consider the inclusion, or not, of an infobox as part of that process and their deliberations. The absence of an infobox at the time that that badge was awarded does not preclude the alter addition of one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. But the consensus of both PR and FAC processes has been reflected again here: this article is excellent without the need of an infobox. Furthermore you have still made no case for one on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. There are two subcommunities of editors, who may or may not overlap. There is the Featured Article subcommunity, whose work is visible to the world. There is also the infobox subcommunity, who believe that comprehensive articles should have infoboxes. The second subcommunity tend to be contentious about the details of infoboxes. Their tendentiousness is, fortunately, not seen by the outside world. I'll leave the article alone and allow the infobox advocates to filibuster about which infobox this article, which is excellent without one, should have. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That the article has been awarded "featured article " status has 'no bearing whatsoever on whether it should have an infobox because, as I said above those editors who concern themselves with the "featured article " process have repeatedly made clear that they do not consider the inclusion, or not, of an infobox as part of that process and their deliberations. It was their choice to discount such matters. You continue to ignore my replies to you on your later claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, the FA process ensures an article "follows the style guidelines". As you are further aware, the relevant style guidelines state that "the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". There is a consensus that infoboxes are not required, and this article sits happily within that established consensus. You have also repeatedly ignored any requests to address the core point: whether, and how, an infobox would be an advantage to this article. Your lack or adequate response suggests you are unable to provide such an answer. Could you either provide such a discussion on this page, and about' this page, or move on to something less pointless and divisive instead? - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already addressed all the points in your comment, some more than once, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not. I'm struggling to retain my good faith in your refusal to outline on this page your thoughts as to why you think an infobox would be an improvement. You have not outlined your thoughts on this page and I'm not entirely sure why you think you don't have to, considering you are the one who wishes to force changes against the agreed (and now reinforced) consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes are frequently contentious. By their nature they over-simplify, and so there is often contention about which of two or three over-simplifications is appropriate. If the issue about what infobox an article should have, then maybe it doesn't need one. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

For the next round of infobox discussion, I suggest a shortcut. If an infobox is suggested, don't look at it as an offense, but as a feedback to the article. You see how a new person understands it. If I read "movements", I write "movements". Then ONLY improve the box. As we have seen, that can improve the article as well. If some day the people who feel responsible for the article think it's good enough, they can copy it to the article, - if not, fine. See you at the next round, "Prends garde à toi!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some time later …

Hmm. I see we are a year on since I last edited this article and all the old debate about the infobox has disappeared, but this particular part has been archived here. For the record, i will again record my own protest at the omission of an infobox, which is an essential part of all wikipedia articles in the age of the mobile phone. It is very likely the only bit such users will read.Sandpiper (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the debate has not disappeared—it has merely been archived. You will find it in Archive 2, above. If you mean to re-open the discussion, that is of course your privilege. It is also my privilege to be the first to oppose the proposal to add an infobox. Contrary to your expressed opinion, it is not an essential part of any wikipedia article, and if users tuning in via mobile phone will read nothing else, then they really are not interested in the subject at all, and the entire article ought to be dumped on grounds of being useless.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What JK wrote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jk and MB. You are both experienced editors as am I, so please do not rush about wikilawyering and arguing the letter of some rule rather than the spirit, which is that there are no rules on wikipedia. There is only one rule, which is to improve the encyclopedia. This of course leads to conflict because everyone believes thay know how to do this. Wikipedia is one huge contradiction, and it advances through conflict.

You understand as well as I, that the old debate has disappeared for practical purposes. Anyone dropping in to this page will see only what is here unless they go to what may be a lot of trouble to dig up the old debate. I doubt the single section here truly represents what everyone has said in the debate. It isnt a summary, it is merely the most recent round.

It is incredibly arrogant to claim that someone who wants a brief check about a particular subject is not anyone wikipedia is interested in helping, and we ought not to do so. This is attacking the entire reason for creating the encyclopedia, and it is questionable if you believe this why you are here at all. Somewhere there is a style page explaining the reasoning about article structure, which explains that a wiki article should be crafted to help all levels of interest, from the most casual to great depth. I did not used to have any particular view on infoboxes, but the minute I saw one on a phone screen I knew they had to exist. Wikipedia only exists at all because of new technology and we cannot ignore changes in that technology. An infobox does not detract from the rest of a page, the only argument against it is that it is repetitious. It is not repetitious in the context of being ideally designed to present bullet point information on a small screen. Sandpiper (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sandpiper, I agree with a lot of what you said, but not with "the old debate". The editor who dared to ask why this article doesn't have an infobox is not permitted (by arbcom) to add one to articles he created, and I who dared to ask if that could be changed (and thought the simple answer would be "yes, why not?") will likely be requested to stay away from infobox discussions, as of yesterday. You have been warned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Movements?

Having studied Yankeecook's lucid and well-reasoned arguments above, I find myself increasingly in agreement. I still don't think that the name given to the subdivisions in the piece is of great significance, but nor do I consider Van den Toorn's terminology definitive. And another point occurs to me: in the context of a ballet, the term "movement" can have a quite different meaning. For example, Stravinsky writes: "In composing the Sacre I had imagined the spectacular part of the performance as a series of rhythmic mass movements of the greatest simplicity..." – and he is not talking about musical subdivisions here. That has made me look at the issue differently, and I am happy to discuss a change in terminology and other associated changes. To clarify, could Yankeecook bullet-point below the things he/she believes should be amended? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he could and I will ... for the moment, confining attention to the "Synopsis and structure" section.

• Stravinsky quote needs a primary source. The current article references Van den Toorn (which, alas, I don't have available at the moment). The quote also appears in V.Stravinsky and Craft Stravinsky in Pictures and Documents on page 75. Unfortunately Craft "fudges" the issue and doesn't provide a clear reference to the source (other than it's "in Stravinsky's hand"). It's clearly from a very early stage of the creation ...

• According to VdT, the Stravinsky quote is from a note sent by S. to Serge Koussevitsky before the latter's performance of The Rite in Moscow, February, 1914. So it is not an early flight of fancy, but a considered description nine months after the premiere. I will amend the article's text to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, here's another one of those difficult Stravinsky dilemmas: he says "the piece has no plot but the choreographic succession is as follows" ... and then gives the plot! Actually, the use of the word "episodes" seems well chosen.

• Depends, I suppose, what you mean by "plot". This is of course van den Toorn's comment, not Stravinsky's. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps somewhere else in the overall article, there should be reference to Stravinsky's "self-revisionist" statements made in the 1920s and 30s when he sought to repudiate aspects of his earlier work ...

• Would you like to tackle this? It was a supreme effort for me to read and digest hundreds of pages of text, and then to summarise down to a 7000-word article. I was aware that not every aspect of the story would be fully covered, but felt that in all esentials it was comprehensive. I don't have the heart – or the time – to revisit my research at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• "The French titles of parts and movements are given in the form established in 1913." ... how about just leaving out "parts and movements"? (thereby avoiding the "movement" question?) or, alternatively, "parts and episodes" ...

• I agree. I'll deal with this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Established in 1913" ... Source? The orchestral score wasn't printed until 1921 ... Are you referring to the 4-hand piano arrangement? If so, the article should say so.

• Yes, it is indeed the four-hand piano version. I will make this clear. The source is that at the end of the paragraph Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• The table: please consider a) removing the numbers (which imply that Stravinsky had provided numbering which he didn't; b) replacing the header "movements" with "episodes";

• Agree both, will do both. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Stravinsky himself refers to "movements" in his discussion of recordings of the work in Themes and Conclusions (1970, reprinted 1982 by the University of California Press), pp. 234-41. 134.173.80.211 (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Synopsis -- What is the source of the "Synopsis" information? It seems to be based on the remainder of Stravinsky's "early" "choreographic succession" we spoke of above. Within the past couple of months, I saw the Joffrey Ballet (live) in its "reconstruction" of Nijinsky's original choreography. (It's also available on Youtube.) It did not agree in some details with the "Synopsis" given here.
• The source of this synopsis is the same Stravinsky-Koussevitsky note referred to above, all covered by the VdT citation. Since it's Stravinsky's own summary I believe it has authority. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Pipers -- It seems self-evident that the "pipers" referred to are, in fact, the bassoon, cor anglais, e-flat clarinet, and other woodwinds of the early part of the Introduction. This takes place while the curtain is still down, so one never "sees it ... So maybe this should be moved to the "Introduction" box of the synopsis ... [Do we need a citation to do so? We can probably find one ... ]

• In his synopsis Stravinsky clearly has the pipers piping and the young men telling fortunes as part of "Augurs of Spring". The score indicates that the "Augurs" episode begins with the stamping sequence, which is hardly suggestive of a pastoral setting, so it seems he was conflating the introductory music with that of the first episode. It's unsatisfactory, but I don't think we can adjust Stravinsky's intentions on our own say-so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Young men telling fortunes -- I don't remember any evidence of this in the Joffrey reconstruction ...

• Nor me, in any of the "Rites" I've seen (I have not seen the Joffrey reconstruction) Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• However, the "old woman" was present at the beginning. Surely, it is she who is divining the "auguries" of spring ... so her appearance should probably be moved into that box ...

• It makes sense, but should we gainsay Stravinsky without specific authority? Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK ... that's all my brain can deal with at the moment. Hope you (Brianboulton) don't find this unnecessarily "nit-picky" ...Yankeecook (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to bed now, but I will look at these points with fresh eyes tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pipers

Ah! Just discovered in Taruskin (...Russian Traditions, p. 874) -- In a letter dating to December 1912, Stravinsky says "The orchestral introduction is a swarm of spring pipes [dudki], later after the curtain goes up, there are auguries ..." Yankeecook (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have just seen this. That makes a difference. Will ponder. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Later) I have (sort of) dealt with this. See what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems a significant improvement to me, because it comes a lot closer to POV-neutral "description" rather than "interpretation" of the available information. Thanks for taking this on. I think we can still "tickle" this a bit ... but it can "settle" first. I've just obtained Van den Toorn's "Rite of Spring" and that clarifies the sources of some of this information for me. I will consider the "Stravinsky recants" question a bit more, too. I don't think we need to go into it deeply, just mention it. IS was such a chameleon ... haha. Later. Yankeecook (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I should have said - Van den Toorn's book is available online; there's a link to it, in the article's bibliography. It's not to be had for love or money over here, so I hope you didn't have to buy it. By all means tweak away as you think appropriate, anywhere you think the article needs clarification or improvement (but please don't add an infobox). Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Editions table moved here

I removed the following from the article just now. It was added by Kongming819 with the edit summary Nieweg's table added at his request diff.

I removed it because it is unsourced and this is a WP:FA and needs to follow WP:CITE and WP:RS. After a little searching on the web, this is also a copy and paste copyvio of this blog post by Norman Lebrecht. While we can't have WP:COPYVIOs, some of this information may be worth including in the article, though it seems to contradict what is already there - was the performance edition lost or not?

Anyway, here it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A table of editions was prepared by David Daniels with comments added by Clinton F. Nieweg:

content redacted per OTRS request #2016050210006808 Nakon 21:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr. Nieweg asked me to put this on the wiki via e-mail. I don't know to cite e-mail on the wiki, but this information did come straight from him, and it's with his permission that it is on the wiki. He is also the same person to submit this information to Mr. Lebrecht. Regarding the performance edition, it was widely thought by many, including Mr. Nieweg, that the autograph manuscript reflected the music at the premiere, and that was the thought reflected on Mr. Lebrecht's post. It should be noted that the facsimile has been released by the Sacher Foundation with a lengthy preface about the manuscript and its use. In a nutshell, because this autograph score was with the publisher at the time of the premiere, Monteux used a different score, which went through revisions and corrections at rehearsals, but since Boosey moved their archives a few decades ago, that score is now lost. The manuscript as we have it now was used in the 1920s reboot with Massine's choreography, but not at the premiere. Kongming819 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply - I think that the Lebrecht blog is probably a RS and so can be used as a source for the article (emails are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia - see WP:RS). While this article is on my watchlist, I am not one of the main editors on it (nor have I read most of the sources used), so I will leave it to others more experienced than I to figure out how to incorporate the information from Lebrecht and Nieweg. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• This chart may be a good start for a review of the editions of The Rite of Spring. However, a quick check of the website of the Paul Sacher Foundation instantly reveals that the first chart entry is either incomplete or inaccurate ... so I would agree that it should stay here on the talk for now. (I have not yet checked any of the other entries.) I will review the "Editions" section of the main article, and double-check the sources over the next few days. Yankeecook (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe this link is the one meant from the Sacher Foundation. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. Thanks Ruhrfisch!

OK ... here goes ... (I'll format the refs. correctly before including).

Autograph Manuscript (Earliest layer)

Stravinsky's autograph fair copy of the full orchestral score was created in stages between the autumn of 1911 and late March of 1913. [ref: Sacher Foundation]. Its earliest layer represents the composer's original conception of the music prior to its first performance.

First Performance Manuscript

The first performances were given from a [non-autograph] manuscript copy, at the time in the possession of Pierre Monteux, the work's first conductor. [ref: Sacher Foundation] It was this score, not the original autograph, that served as the exemplar for the first printed edition, which was not printed until 1921. [Is it known whether this "Monteux" copy" still exists?]

First Printed Edition

The first edition of the full orchestral score was published in 1921 by Editions russes de musique in Berlin. [Ref. WorldCat] Because it was based on the "Monteux copy," it displays significant differences to Stravinsky's autograph. These differences are considered to have arisen from "corrections and alterations" made at the time of the premiere, and (possibly) during the score's preparation for publication. [Ref. Sacher Foundation]

Autograph Manuscript (Subsequent layers)

Following the work's 1913 performances in Paris, the autograph manuscript was used for subsequent performances, including the Ballets Russes revival of 1920-21 (with new choreography by Massine). At this time, "substantial" corrections in Stravinsky's hand were made in the original autograph manuscript.

More to come ... Yankeecook (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I have informed Brianboulton (who was the nominator at WP:FAC) and he will comment here too, though is quite busy at present. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ruhrfisch and Yankeecook. I am watching this thread but don't have time at the moment to do more than observe the information. I will study the sources as soon as time allows. Naturally, any reliably-sourced information that qualifies or updates what is currently in the article needs to be incorporated. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)