Talk:Erik Satie

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Dance: Ballet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics 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.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance This article is supported by WikiProject Ballet. WikiProject Ballet To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See the Image requests page. Articles: Choo Chiat Goh, Vladimir Bourmeister, Columbia City Ballet, Michael Cook (ballet), Peter Schaufuss, Cyril Atanassoff, Post-structuralist ballet Cleanup : Ballet Fantastique, NYCB/cast lists, re-write the whole Russian ballet article Copyedit : Rasta Thomas, Ballet (marked as in need of immediate attention) Disambiguation : Moscow Ballet Expand : French ballet, Balanchine method, Cecchetti method, Original Ballet Russe, Royal Swedish Ballet, Bloch (dancewear), Turnout (ballet), Opera ballet, English ballet, Italian ballet NPOV : Capezio Stubs : Pas de deux, ballet tutu, Nicolai Legat, John Neumeier, Miami City Ballet, more Unreferenced : Miami City Ballet, Oklahoma City Ballet Wikify : Moscow Ballet (United States), Oklahoma City Ballet (in need of sections and references) Other : Review recent changes to ballet articles. Composers This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers Classical music 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 France Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've overhauled the text, removing uncited material and adding new stuff, with citations. Comments on the revised text cordially invited here. Tim riley talk 22:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you do it Tim; your edits have certainly constituted a massive improvement! I do wonder a few things:

• Is "who signed his name Erik Satie after 1884" even needed? I'm not sure I understand the need for clarification
• I feel that his incipient exploration into minimalism should be included, the term itself I mean, as I know many look back at him as the founding father of the style
• The minimalism note above and his Furniture music "invention" seem worth mentioning in a the lead
• Of course, a small influence or legacy section could be included discussing such innovations as the above, and perhaps his impact on Cage and visual arts that the Grove article touches on.

Just some thoughts. Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the above, Aza24. I've added something to the Lead and the Works section about minimalism. Do beef the latter up if so inclined (or any other bit, too, of course). I'm not sure I think the furniture music belongs in the lead. It isn't really what he's known for, I feel, though I am open to conviction on the point. I inherited the line about his signing his name as Erik after 1884 but I thought it was worthwhile keeping to make it plain that the spelling "Eric" in the opening words of the lead is not an error. People can be very hard to convince sometimes: the trouble our predecessors had in getting one strenuously disbelieving editor to realise that Poulenc was not François! – Tim riley talk 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "un vaste bâtiment très inconfortable et assez vilain à voir – une sorte de local pénitencier sans aucun agrément extérieur – ni intérieur du reste" (in the section "Early years", note 2) is currently cited to Lajoinie. However, Lajoinie doesn't give a source for this, as far as I could tell. The sentence comes from Satie's Écrits : réunis, établis et présentés par Ornella Volta, Éditions Champ libre, 1981, p. 67, from a piece about Claude Debussy. I can't figure out how the ref template works, so I would appreciate it if someone else could change this. --92.72.2.121 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – that's a tweak worth making, I think, and now duly done. Tim riley talk 13:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It bugs me SO MUCH that whenever I visit a composer's wikipedia page, and there's no infobox. It looks nice, it's standardized across wikipedia, but for some reason composers are the exception. Why? Because you nerds overthink things and remove it. I'm sorry for being rude, but it's 100% true. It does not matter how much "logic" there is behind removing the infobox, the average reader visits this page and immediately goes, "wow, I wonder why this page is so ugly, oh, it's because there's no infobox". I never write suggestions but this really peeved me. 2607:F598:B40A:E0:8C8D:8D65:C23B:DC6B (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's 100% true that you have your facts wrong. Info-boxes are not standardised across Wikipedia. Wikipedia's agreed policy is that they are useful for some articles and not others, and it is matter for consensus in each article. If you want to try to change Wikipedia's policy to make info-boxes compulsory, please feel free to propose it. Tim riley talk 07:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed strange. However, you won't have much luck, as most articles on classical music are written by a small group of editors who feel extremely strongly about not including info boxes. I believe you may have encountered some of them already. Because they know each other well and have been prolific contributors for years, each proposal will be immediately stonewalled and the subsequent "consensus" is easy to predict. Even though there is supposed to be no WP:OWNERSHIP over articles, it is near impossible to change this trend. Arguing is exhausting and pointless. Ppt91^talk 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC) Ppt91^talk 04:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not nerds, they're dweebs 2600:8800:218F:2D00:449F:B3E8:77A:2A2E (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How kind and civil! Info-boxes are not standardised across Wikipedia. Wikipedia's agreed policy is that they are useful for some articles and not others, and it is matter for consensus in each article. If you want to try to change Wikipedia's policy to make info-boxes compulsory, please feel free to propose it in the appropriate forum. Tim riley talk 08:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I’m tired of asking your permission to add an infobox to articles you and your friends “stewardize” or whatever you want to call it. Other users are tired as well and it’s on this very page. This isn’t even Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, this is preemptively and systematically inventing a consensus not to have one and forcing other users to fight against it, knowing that you will always have backup by virtue of being in agreement and constantly monitoring as many articles in your collective topic area as possible and immediately rushing to each-others’ support. The only legitimacy you have is an outdated guideline from wp:composers that was formed 2007-2010(!) which you treat as a de facto policy that somehow extends to other completely random “liberal arts” biographies (like Noël Coward) that you and your friends happen to consider themselves the “stewards” of. I read through wp:infoboxes extensively and found no guideline that says anything about “liberal arts biographies” or whatever. Even Wikipedia:Law of infobox inclusion, which acquiesces to the “composers exception” , doesn’t mention anything about it. Nobody wants to make infoboxes compulsory, even in biographies, despite you and your colleagues’ repeated strawman assertions that everyone who disagrees with you et al is some kind of infobox fanatic that wants literally every article and its dog to have a 2-paragraph infobox that tells you a person’s shoe size and blood type. Even I think some biographies (like Homer Plessy and King Arthur) are better off without them by virtue of not having sufficient information on the subjects to fill out even the most basic information fields. But repeated RfCs on this subject have proven the community as a whole disagrees with your oddball fringe stance that “liberal arts biographies shouldn’t have infoboxes because reasons”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are duly noted. Please seek a consensus on this article talk page if you persist in demanding an info-box. Tim riley talk 13:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have to be the one to seek consensus? Why didn’t you seek consensus not to have it instead of assuming you had it by default like you always do? Dronebogus (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you seek a consensus on this article talk page if you persist in demanding an info-box. As it happens, I have an article up for FAC which has a substantial info-box because an info-box is helpful to the reader there. If you can establish a consensus that the same obtains here, so be it. If persisting, please refrain from the personal abuse of the info-box absolutists seen above. Tim riley talk 15:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that it would have been a courtesy to invite you to participate in the FAC to which I refer, above. It is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mandell_Creighton/archive3 Tim riley talk 15:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have the sole right to determine what is useful to readers. I, as a reader, find infoboxes helpful 99% of the time. You as a reader obviously don’t; that doesn’t mean you get to deprive everyone else of them. I ran into a similar issue with external links— I generally don’t find them useful or worthy of inclusion, but other people do, and I eventually acquiesced to their opinions. In the process I’ve come to understand better that omitting information is usually worse than including it— people who like it can have it; people who don’t can just ignore it. Dronebogus (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean no to helping at the FAC? Editors can often pool their views at FAC. Tim riley talk 20:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really see why I have to, I simply don’t edit there. I’m sure the article is lovely and you did a bang-up job contributing to it. Dronebogus (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you haven't got to. I thought it would be a nice thing to invite you, but that's fine. Tim riley talk 13:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be a good idea to have an infobox in this article. What exactly would be required to "achieve a consensus"? Imaginatorium (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Consensus. Tim riley talk 16:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also find it useful to feature an infobox on this page. Ragdoll4467 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what would you put in it? Tim riley talk 11:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date and location, death date and location, burial place as well as genre/style and instrument. All of this is quite clear for this article, but all of it is not in the introduction. I understand it might be ambiguous for others. There is definitely more information that you can add. Ragdoll4467 (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tim riley: I think there is an emergent consensus demonstrated on this talk page that the article would benefit from an infobox. I can request an RfC to confirm that suspicion, but RfCs are bureaucratic and time-consuming. Would you acquiesce to having the last infobox in the page history restored to the article? Dronebogus (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am old (septuagenarian) and too weary to resist any more onslaughts from i-box warriors. Do what you like. I think i-boxes for composers are a rotten idea, unhelpful to our readers, and imposed by editors who have had nothing to do with the article, but i-box absolutists will have their way. Impose an i-box if you insist but with no kind of blessing from me. Tim riley talk 21:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tim riley: I don’t enjoy fighting over this, but I object to your characterization as an “infobox absolutist/warrior”, and to your characterization of infoboxes as unhelpful. But I genuinely admire your willingness to at least reach some kind of detente here. Dronebogus (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, as a Signpost report notes: "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 the proposed box presents information stripped of context and lacking nuance, whereas the excellent WP:LEAD section emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts about the subject. In addition, as the key information about the subject that could be included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article, the box would be a 3rd mention of these facts. In particular, the proposed infobox adds absolutely no key information to the article that an at-a-glance perusal of opening paragraph of the article does not provide in clearer context. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose IB for all the usual reasons I've mentioned before. The suggested one seems to be adding one purely for the sake of having one, or having one in order to wait a short spell to bloat out with idiotic rubbish. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article have an infobox? Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a reminder to all who !vote, and by way of background: ArbCom’s rulings on IB’s state that arguments should be based on whether an IB is appropriate on the specific article in question, not a general discussion or vote in favour of IBs in general - decisions of 2013 and 2018, plus many active discussions in the intervening period.
  This article did not have an IB in place from its creation in October 2001 until one was added (and subsequently removed) recently. - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. As a reader I routinely use infoboxes to find out where a subject was born, and at what age they died. The lead does not necessarily provide that information at a glance. For reference this is the last infobox the article had, which I think is pretty good. Dronebogus (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the very good reasons explained (again) to Dronebogus above by Ssilvers and SchroCat. The main aspect of a composer's article is his oeuvre, which cannot be summarised in an info-box, and an info-box that does not cover the main thing of importance about a subject is no use to our readers and makes Wikipedia look stupid. Tim riley talk 13:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The main content of a article about a person's life story is, unsurprisingly, the story of their life. And since in order to have the life story of someone in Wikipedia that someone must be notable, it follows that a significant amount of the text will be dedicated to their life's work. For some, it'll be Zorb football; for others, music. Therefore, the infobox in this biography would be as helpful as it is in every other biography. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong view. There might be a case for having a small "musicians-type" infobox (a drop-down list of notable works might be really useful?) But I can also see the elegance of having just a good image with a caption. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Various readers, especially on mobile, find them useful, they have become essentially a standard feature of well-developed articles here, and none of the usual reasons to avoid one (e.g. very complicated or disputed nationality or other fact, or dearth of ones that summarize well) are present in this case. The resistance here seems to be habitual "WikiProject Composers hates infoboxes" tedium. I'm not at all swayed by the claim that his œvre cannot be easily summarized. This is self-evidently not the case, because we are already summarizing it in an unusually concise two-subsection "Works" section, and it should be very easy (as these things go) to compress that into a few bullet-point highlights, as usual. Nor is the claim that an infobox must focus on the works to be useable; see, e.g., the one at Stephen King (which probably excludes them because his list of notable works is overwhelming). Infobox crafting is not rocket science. As long as one provides some basics that skimming readers are likely to be looking for, then it serves a purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stanton, is there any chance you could refrain from mischaracterising and smearing other people's opinions - particularly as no-one has actually made any !vote that comes even close to such characterisation? It does nothing but add fuel to the fire, rather than aid consensus building. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pointing out that there's a decade-running "won't drop the stick" problem emanating from participants in a particular wikiproject, which persists after multiple ArbCom cases, is not "mischaracterizing or smearing ... opinions". It's observing a still-ongoing, faction-style disruptive behavior pattern, which needs to come to an end. Did you have any substantive input on my actual rationales? If not, then picking a fight with me in the name trying to stop me from what you think is fight-picking is a bit counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a different opinion isn't refusing to drop the stick: it's just having a different opinion. Either way, it was a polite request aimed at ensuring there's no extra heat being added to an area which is still classed as a contentious topic. But, if you want to stick with that wording, and misclassify my request as trying to pick a fight, that's up to you. - SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think by accusing other people of “smearing” your/your friends’ opinions you are turning up the heat way more than SMcCandlish here. Dronebogus (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, an infobox helps summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. This is especially true on long articles like this one. A modest infobox—containing essential biographical details such as birth and death dates, occupation, and notable works—would enhance readability without overwhelming the article’s prose. Many readers, especially those unfamiliar with Satie, benefit from a quick-reference summary, making an infobox a useful addition that aligns with Wikipedia’s goal of accessibility. - Nemov (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as rather pointless and silly. This seems to be having an IB simply for the sake of having one, or as a springboard to fill it with trivia further down the line. The key elements about Satie are provided in the opening lines, with other basic information (such as some of his key works) in the brief lead, where they are put in context and their weight is more easily judged for the supporting text. As per normal, many of the 'standard' IB fields focus on the more trivial aspects without actually informing readers of the importance of the factoids. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one ever fills these things with trivia. If they did, it can be removed. If you want to convince people your position is correct at least use arguments based on things that are true. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true and there are countless examples of such trivial factoids being added and edit warred back in when they are removed. There's no need to respond and no need to bludgeon every opposing comment. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Doesn't need a full list of every work, though including a couple notable ones can be nice, and there isn't an obvious reason not to. It's pretty standard in well-developed biographies at this point. Good for essential biographical details to have an easy reference, and doesn't take away from the detailed biography below for readers who want more. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "obvious reason" is that this is an encyclopaedia, and my, or your, arbitary personal choice of "a couple notable ones" is a mile away from being encyclopaedic. Tim riley talk 16:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and would not support a cherrypicking of arbitrary compositions, especially since I think Satie is more known for his general eccentricity than any particular piece(s) of music in the way Beethoven or Mozart are. I wouldn’t mind a link to a full list of compositions, however. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]