Talk:Benjamin Britten

FA updates

So, as one of the major contributors to this article and the one who nominated it nearly 12 years ago before my temporary semi-retirement, things in the WP:FA have changed. That said, I've been thinking, should we consider updating the article to meet current FA standards where necessary? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we add an infobox?

There's no good reason for there to be no infobox.

Sentimental Dork (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Not seeing any good reason for addition. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

There's an infobox for Pears. There are infoboxes on most articles now. I just went back and read all of the archived discussions here and frankly there's no good reason I can see to avoid an infobox. It would make the page a lot easier to navigate for people who want a quick overview of Benjamin Britten. I'll add the infobox myself when I have time; I shouldn't just be complaining about it on the talk page. Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You definitely shouldn't be adding it when you haven't established a consensus to do so, which needs to be done on a per-article basis, not based on what other articles may do. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I won't add one now. What are your objections? Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the existing lead provides a good quick overview. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

No doubt about that, and an infobox would take nothing away from it. Someone who just wants to know where he died or who his partner was would have to do a search. A link to his works - the best and most neutral access to his music - is far away. Readers less good in English would be served by additional parameter direction. For background see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Criteria for adding an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that discussion has reached consensus for the factors you suggest at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any objections other than "I don't think it's needed"? Because some people would appreciate an infobox. Is there a reason that you're opposed to it? Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned the discussion as background, not as a prerequisite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I would support an infobox like this, as it has a helpful link to a list of Britten's compositions. Shogeneral (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

That looks really good. My original thought was that I'd like to add Peter Pears as his partner too; they were not only romantically involved but also professional partners and it would make sense to me for him to be linked in the infobox. I wanted to read the Pears article and I was annoyed that I had to search for a link on the page when there's a link to Britten in the infobox on his page. Could we do that? Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I support that infobox, and would also add Pears as partner, as I said above, and more face for a lead image, as you suggested below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Updated the image, and added Pears as partner. Shogeneral (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. I can't think of any reasons to object now. Hopefully we can add the infobox soon without very much pushback. Sentimental Dork (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Waiting for a week would is a common practice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Sentimental Dork (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I commented out the infobox, because it would go to the transclusion count. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

New lead image

Britten in 1965

I noticed that the current lead image is AI-upscaled, violating MOS:AIUPSCALE. Though it is very slight, there are signs that Remini AI enhancer was used on it. Regardless of the infobox discussion above, I propose this image to replace it. Shogeneral (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Even without taking the MOS violation into account, I like that photo better than the current one; it seems more suitable for a lead image. I'd support the change. Sentimental Dork (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I added to some of his compositions of around the time, such as War Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Infobox name

Seems to be some disagreement about whether the Infobox should give the most common name or the formal name. In general, infoboxes like this give formal names. I can point to hundreds of articles that use the "The Right Honourable The Lord X [Postnominals]" format whether or not that is the most common name. Bertrand Russell, for example, or Stanley Baldwin or Bernard Montgomery or Edward Bulwer-Lytton. Why should Britten be treated differently? john k (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. For someone not English, the formal name sounds extremely formal. I am German, and read 100 concert programs in which the name is given as Benjamin Britten. What do others think about English tradition and universal common name? - Talking about formality: when reverted you should discuss but leave the status quo. But, as you may have noticed, I don't go for too much formality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It sounds formal. Britten was the first composer who received a Life Peerage. Andrew Lloyd Webber is another case. I tend to agree with john k. Grimes2 20:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It is certainly formal! But the convention has been to use the formal name in the infobox. It's honestly typically the only place in a Wikipedia article where we use the full formal style, which is one reason I'd like to maintain the convention. And I don't think there's anything about Britten that particularly distinguishes him from the other examples I gave. The article title will still be at Benjamin Britten, which is indeed the common name! john k (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo while discussion continues per WP:ONUS. John K please do not edit war again. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Was Gerda not edit warring? john k (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:EW: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LORD states that "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that." The way I read this is that those positions must be included in an infobox, which makes me favor john k's position. It may be wiser for the policy to go on a case-by-case basis, but stare decisis. Shogeneral (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it is good to have a place in every article for the formal style to be included like this. We use the common name in the article title and basically everywhere else in the article except two places, and the infobox is the only place where you can get the full formal style (first line doesn't include "Right Honourable" and gives the artificial "Firstname Lastname, Peerage Title" format that you basically only use for cataloguing.) Nobody has presented any real argument for why Britten is different from the numerous other examples where we do it this way. john k (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Without seeing this, I adopted the formal style as soon as I saw this on my watchlist, saying: per talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

So at the moment we have three people who've preferred the formal style, and Gerda who...I'm not quite sure if you're saying you changed your mind. Does anyone want to make a case against the formal style in the infobox at this point, or do we have consensus? john k (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we have consensus. Shogeneral (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)