Talk:Carl Nielsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCarl Nielsen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2015Good article nomineeListed
June 5, 2015Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2018, and October 3, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Nielsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The website has been updated and I could not find a search box! Perhaps this page will reappear later. --Mirokado (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 9, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nielsen
Carl Nielsen (1865–1931) was a Danish musician, conductor and violinist, widely recognized as his country's most prominent composer. Initially playing in a military band before attending the Royal Danish Academy of Music in Copenhagen, he premiered his Op. 1, Suite for Strings, in 1888, at the age of 23. His early music was inspired by composers such as Brahms and Grieg, but he soon developed his own style. By the time of his death, he had produced 419 known works; some of these, such as his opera Maskarade (1906), have become integral to Denmark's national heritage.Photograph: Georg Lindstrøm; restoration: Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...

Inclusion of minimal infobox[edit]

I would like us to consider adding to the Carl Nielsen biography article a minimal infobox, consistent with what we did for Jean Sibelius (relevant discussion Talk:Jean Sibelius). Apologies for having acted too rashly by adding the infobox yesterday (you can view it here). I like these minimal inboxes for a few reasons: (1) inclusion of age at death is very helpful; (2) inclusion of signature (which is a nice design touch and a historical artifact in its own right); (3) quick access to the composer's list of compositions page, which I (and I imagine other users) utilize all the time (and which is cumbersome to find in the navbox at the bottom of the page or mid-article ... lots of scrolling); and (4) a minimal infobox avoids the cruft of the longer/detailed one and represents a nice compromise between the two purist schools of thought.

Pinging a few editors who would seem to be interested in this topic: Ipigott, Smerus, Nikkimaria, Gerda Arendt, ModernDayTrilobite, Ssilvers, Melodia Chaconne, Songwaters, AnyGuy, Aza24, and Mirokado. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It would definitely be a helpful convenience to readers who want to quickly see his dates or the list of his compositions. Songwaters (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support @Silence of Järvenpää I support this. There is little more for me to add that hasn't already been said to support this motion, but I believe the reasoning for adding one is sound. AnyGuy (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See Signpost report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the information in the box must already be discussed in the body of the article and the Lead section, and likely has also just been seen in a Google Knowledge Graph, the box would be a redundant 3rd (or likely 4th) mention of these facts. (3) The IB's overly bold format would distract readers and discourage them from reading the text of the article. (4) Updates are often made to articles but not reflected in the box (or vice versa), and vandalism frequently creeps in that is hard to detect because of the lack of referencing in the box. (5) Boxes in liberal arts biographies like this attract fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (6) IBs in arts bios distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The reasons listed by Silence of Järvenpää are compelling: in particular, an immediately obvious link to List of compositions by Carl Nielsen is undoubtedly a useful asset for readers, and an image of Nielsen's signature is an interesting feature that wouldn't be a natural fit for a different location in the article. Additionally, I disagree with the premise that infoboxes distract readers who would otherwise read the article prose. In the majority of cases, a reader who seeks quick facts will only ever skim the article if they can't find the information they seek in an infobox, while a reader who's interested in learning about Nielsen more thoroughly will read the prose regardless of whether an infobox is present or not. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Ssilvers, please look at your standard oppose list and strike what is not relevant for the suggested minimal infobox for this particular article. The infobox is redundant to the lead by design, - it is just aimed at different readers, and in the over ten years of talking about this subject, I have not understood why we can't serve both interests, at a glance and in context (which may be the same person, just needing a different bit of information at a different time). In the Sibelius discussion mentioned above I asked how many RfCs we need to call the infobox wars over. They have taken their toll, in wasted time and - worse - editor relations. We had Tchaikovsky, recently. I'd like to see the minimal infobox, as in Percy Grainger since 2013, as an acceptable compromise. Imagine: we could write articles instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, your argument is the same as when a man tells a woman, "I will only put it in a little." -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ssilvers and for the following explicit reasons: the proposed infobox contains no useful information that is not in the opening sentences of the lead and, so far from being "minimal", contains the entirely irrelevant signature of the composer; the circumstnaces in which the signature might be needed 'speedily' by a WP user are inconceivable. Infoboxes in general are today made redundant by the fact that entering a searh for a name on Google or Bing automatically brings up dates and places of birth and death etc., which they take automatically from Wikipedia texts - it's not even necessary to enter Wikipedia to get this info. Try it yourselves now with 'Carl Nielsen'. The entire Infobox argument is based on the history and the nature of the internet of five or six years ago - wake up!! --Smerus (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Already quite awake, thank you. Your point about redundancy, however, makes me think that perhaps your eyes are closed. Show me where in the lede for Nielsen (or Sibelius) it tells the reader the age at which the composer died, the location of his birth, or the location of his death. Answer: It doesn't. And these three details are not "fancruft", but rather are the key basic, orienting details of the composer's biography. Deliciously, the related point about Google and other search engines providing "knowledge boxes" actually undermines your position, in that their usage shows how desirable, cognitively, an interface is that provides at-a-glance details for a user to consume with minimal effort, i.e., an infobox. Finally, it's a heroic assumption that readers arrive at an article from Google (or another search engine) ... sure many do, but plenty don't (especially if they're already in Wikipedia and clicking around/moving from article to article), and so won't be exposed to the Google knowledge box. Try it yourselves now with 'Carl Nielsen'. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great way to summarize manner, age, and location of death, location of birth. list of compositions. A minimal infobox with these, plus a signature is perfect imo. Signature shows some of the person's style, and this I findd uniquely valuable as there are few other applicable places to put it in the article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is no downside to including infoboxes for people who find them valuable. People who do not find them valuable are free not to look at them. PianoDan (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well ... given the comments/informal vote, as well as the fact that this page hasn't been edited in over two weeks, I am going to restore the minimal inforbox on the Carl Nielsen bio. By submitting this question to the Talk page, I believe I have fulfilled the request of the editor who reverted. Thanks. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 20:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"susceptible to opportunities with other ladies"[edit]

Surely there's a more neutral, less nudge-nudge-wink-wink way to say that Nielsen had sexual relations with women besides his wife? I'm not conversant enough with the details to propose a wording (or a source), but someone else must be. · rodii · 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wonder why we need to include such details at all. How are the affairs notable? Did they produce illegitimate children? Inform or inspire his art? Ruin his reputation and result in his exclusion from society? Cause a divorce from his wife? If not, then such details come off as the 19th/20th-century equivalent of intrusive tabloid gossip. And, of course, given moral standards, they're intrinsically (even if inadvertently) judgmental. A personal opinion, and one that I recognize is probably in the minority. But I'll voice it, nonetheless. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 23:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECTION: Actually, I see now that Nielsen had a few illegitimate children, so my own question is answered. But, I think, the larger point I'm trying to make still stands: there is a reflective tendency to include these kinds of details in articles, even if they're not notable. I suppose with Nielsen, the notability is established. Apologies for the mix-up on this specific case! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 23:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit! · rodii · 16:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carl_Nielsen&oldid=1212396820"