Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky#RFC regarding the addition of an infobox

The number of photographs was overdoing it. But I do regret the loss of some of them. Maybe being a simple soul I like to think about people as having recongisable faces. And for that reason I regret the loss of some close associates: Chakovskiy's wife, the very importanat Nadyezhda von Meck, whose husband had made a fortune from the railway line that took Ukrainian wheat to RUssia, etc.

Could we have some of these pictures back please?

Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure what you mean, Tchaikovsky's wife is still there (personal life section), as is Nadyezhda von Meck (opera composer section). Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There are various competing theories and interpretations of Tchaikovsky's sexual orientation, and I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add the :Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality to connect his article with other similar discussions. I don't see this as expressing an opinion one way or another, it is simply recognizing that these historical interpretations exist. Rylee Amelia (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:According to this cited passage in the article: "Biographers have generally agreed that Tchaikovsky was homosexual". There appears to be no dispute about this (I've never heard of one), despite his failed marriage to a woman. Simon Morrison's recent biography is unequivocal about Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. He reaffirmed this [https://musicwebinternational.com/2024/07/an-interview-with-author-simon-morrison/ in an interview a few months ago]. Morrison also said that Tchaikovsky's wife knew in advance that he was gay. The only thing Morrison disputed was that the Soviets suppressed knowledge of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality. (If anything, he said that homophobia about Tchaikovsky is "mostly non-Russian".) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The consistent lack of citations for the spurious paragraph in the introduction is a bit ridiculous. It reads like propaganda. I will delete in its entirety if no one objects to it soon. SF3237 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Lead sections are not required to include citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I just came here to say the same thing. You really don't want citations in the lead, because the lead is a summary of what is already in the text, especially for an article that has been through the Featured Article process. Antandrus (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, what do you mean in your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky&oldid=1297225212 here] when you say "for some of the greatest composers (Bach, Mozart Beethoven), no surname anyway, - it's an honour"?

Where is it written that we should "honour" some people or give them special treatment or elevate them above others? Or that it’s acceptable to do so when readers expect neutrality?

MOS:SURNAME makes the matter quite clear in its first sentence: "After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". Note the use of "a person" rather than "a subject". Keeper of Albion (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: Firstly, I made two mistakes in that edit summary and noticed, but we can't repair edit summaries. "for some of the greatest composers (Bach, Mozart Beethoven), no surname anyway" was nonsense (should have been "no given name"), and I should not have mentioned "honour" at all. Trying again: Some people are so well known that reference to them by only their surname not only suffices, but is a service to the reader, who arrives at the recognisable name immediately. If that is against the MoS guideline, we should change the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Recognisability is certainly an argument, but you could take it and argue for renaming this very article simply to Tchaikovsky, or J. R. R. Tolkien to Tolkien, or renaming Joseph Stalin simply to Stalin, or moving Adolf Hitler to Hitler. Why not? They’re all existing redirects and highly unlikely to be confused with other persons. Would it be acceptable in your view for McLibel case#Libel charges to introduce — for the first time in the article — Keir Starmer simply as Starmer, given that it redirects there and Starmer is now internationally famous?

::Clearly in these cases and similar ones encyclopaedic thoroughness and comprehensiveness matter more than what you or we might call recognisability. I find it difficult to imagine a person who would recognise the name Beethoven but have to pause and think upon encountering it preceded by Ludwig van. And in many of these cases having to click on a (frankly pretentious) linked surname to get the person’s forename is not helpful. It may not be what readers expect, either. And, ultimately, it violates the MOS, and doesn’t seem to be up for much discussion. Keeper of Albion (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Obviously, we see it differently. Every time I read "Wolfgang Amadeus" I get angry ;) - The Salzburg Festival, his festival, never does that. However, it's common, so it's the article name, no question. But in articles, we can do better and not use a name that the person never used. Just one example. - The MoS is no law. This featured article has used just the surnames of some persons, for as long as I know it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky&oldid=280510772 without a link even], as so commonly known, and a change would require a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: A good indication of who these people are is if a redirect page exists for their surname. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)