This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
I see no benefit whatsoever with this box. We have only one field, "language", which can easily be written into the lead (and is also mentioned in the image caption). Once we've removed this field, we have nothing other than the box outline that separates the IB version from the infoboxless version. In light of that this has to be one of the most pointless infoboxes I have seen in a while. Maybe someone could explain the benefits here? Or maybe, as in other cases, this'll get ignored and get added to someone's "reverted section" on their user page, instead, which won't help the issue at all. CassiantoTalk 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the box is redundant, also for reasons I mentioned in the edit summary when I removed it earlier today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, user talk pages are not usually suitable to discuss article content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look at the 2018 user talk page discussion: TL;DR, can you point to any part of that discussion directly relevant here? But for my part, I'd rather limit myself to what is discussed here, that is on the page where it is relevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt, what "user"? A user of what? I have a name. And while I'm here, and only permitted to have one say on the matter, I would agree most strongly with Francis's reversion. The box was the Bold edit, there was a "silent consensus" in place for an infoboxless article (hence the lack of opposition to my three-year-old post, here), Francis Reverted it today, and now it should be Discussed here so a proper consensus can form, not a bullshit "silent consensus" that someone called it a few years ago. CassiantoTalk 17:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cassianto. I tried not to bother you with these old matters. Sorry. I am not watching and reading here, today is Sunday, and I have content writing to do. See you tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis. To post an edit war warning here when you are editing warring yourself and in fact began the reversion appears to be disingenuous. Your response to a two year old talk page comment as reason to revert after you've already removed the info box once is also questionable. I'd suggest you back away from the article and let things cool down. As an aside: there are no "rules" which restrict content discussions from user talk pages. I will revert the article page to its last stable version and assume there will be no reversion until current discussion and agreement is reached. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Littleolive oil, please don't mess with my talk page signature as you did here --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for signature change. That was a non-deliberate artifact of my post. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. On this talk page, there was, for over two-and-a-half years, 100% consensus to remove the infobox. From there, WP:BRD should work: I reverted the infobox, which was apparently introduced here without consensus: discussion should show whether a new consensus can develop, otherwise the talk page consensus, stable since two-and-a-half years, should be applied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reversions for any reason except vandalism is still a questionable reversion and the beginning of edit warring. Whether a 2 1/2 year old comment constitutes 100% consensus when no action was taken is debatable. I'd suggest you work this out on the talk page. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best treatment of the above is to handle it like a bad dream, and go forward. I hope that we all can agree that infobox discussions take away from creating content, and therefore should be avoided whenever possible. While discussions about biographies have occurred in 2020, I don't recall any about compositions in years. I believe that during the last years, we made progress by respect for the different layout ideas of others, especially if the others are the main contributors. This is not to be confused with ownership.
This article was more or less a stub until 1 January 2018, then expanded as the beginning for a general improvement of the psalms articles (which is ongoing). The best-developed one is Psalm 84. The others (should) follow that model. Can we please just silently and peacefully return to creating content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
