Talk:Sappho

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samuel1418.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wpfortlewisstudent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Organization of the article

I think this article needs more section divisions. Not a lot, but even 2 or 3 would help. For example the section that’s headed “Life” has some good paragraphs that are really not that specifically about her life, which I find not only unhelpful regarding the topic, but also they are distracting as a question of style. The “life” section has content regarding ancient sources, there is a paragraph devoted to the testimonia, and content about her appearance. This content can be very easily divided and given headings. Of course her appearance, and sources, do have something to do with her life, but so do her verse, and her sexuality, etc., and those topics get their own headings. So the experience of reading the “life” section feels a bit meandering as the section interrupts itself, to change topics, then it returns to the main thread (if it is the “main thread”) then it veers off a bit again. This gives the reader the feeling that there is not complete certainty regarding where things are going.

There is a bit of a “math puzzle” that begins the “life" section: It says that there are 3 main sources (and one of them is plural, so there are more than three): then in the next paragraph we read that there are 2 sources: her own poetry, and the “other” one is testimonia. The answer to how we went from 3 to 2, and if the 2 is actually the first 2 of the 3 may need a bit of backtracking and study and weighing of the slightly different descriptions. The section says that Sappho’s poetry “is a source for information about her life”, and then the section shifts ground (which is really a contradiction) and the section then says her poetry “might” be so. But maybe not.

Also the testimonia is unique to Sappho, and is so interesting and important, it deserves its own heading, it isn’t covered elsewhere, and it is worth expanding. The article doesn’t give a clear picture of what exactly it is. Gaustaag (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I will venture a bit of editing, step one, to try to work on a small bit of organizing and simplifying, without losing any content. Gaustaag (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine idea. I will let you know what I think once you have finished. Presently, it is rather difficult to judge what to think of the proposal since it has not yet been implemented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I like the new "Biographical sources" section at the beginning of the article and I think that was a good idea. (In fact, I did something similar myself with the article Pythagoras a few months ago.) I have moved the vase painting back to the first section because having two main images is highly atypical of high-status articles and I think the vase painting fits perfectly well where it was before.

I also moved the information about her appearance back to the "Life" section because I think having a separate section just about her appearance is undue. It also seems vaguely sexist, because we would probably not have a whole "Appearance" section for an article about a male poet. Also, the new section was really short (only one paragraph) and I tend to dislike short sections. (Short subsections are fine in my opinion, but generally not short sections.) I understand what you mean about the "Life" section sort of meandering a bit, but I think that it does fit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be saying, Kato, that certain content should be buried inside of another section, so that perhaps it will be camouflaged among all the other words, in order that it won’t stand out so much. (You want to keep content about her appearance confined inside the larger section about her “Life” so that it won’t be too, as you say, “undue”.) This reasoning sounds dubious to me. It seems disrespectful of the “Life” section, if you’re suggesting it be treated as a place to stash things so that they may hide among the clutter. I think content about “her life” needs to be treated with more care than that — because the history attempts to go so far back in time, and because so little is known. I also think that if the story of her “appearance” is so little appreciated, then it should be either included or not. Perhaps a better title could be “How she has been portrayed”. And it could be expanded to show that the topic is not just about how she might actually have appeared, but also about the ancient history of the various portraits and comments. As it is, the section on her appearance, doesn’t fit well — if you want it to be in the “Life” section and be considered a part of her actual life. And the editorial principle of “burying content in larger sections, to give them a lower profile” needs to be questioned. Also the link that you linked to (regarding the idea of something being undue) links to an article about Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a different topic, and doesn’t support your idea. Perhaps you linked it without actually reading what you apparently want others to read. Gaustaag (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No... That is not what I am saying at all. You are misconstruing what I said. I am not in any way trying to hide content, nor am I suggesting that the "Life" section should be a place to "stash" "clutter." I have no idea where you are getting the impression that that is what I am trying to do. I am merely maintaining that the information about her appearance is better suited in the "Life " section. Singling it out in a section of its own puts too much emphasis on it and implies that her physical appearance is equally as important as her poetry, since both of them are given their own sections. In any case, if I were trying to hide the information about her appearance, placing it in the "Life" section would not be a very effective means of doing so. Assuming that the person reading the article actually reads it, they will still read the paragraph regardless where it is located. What I am talking about is a matter of emphasis, not apparentness. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the WP:UNDUE article, my interpretation of the Wikipedia policies is more of a "common law" perspective: the policies as they are generally implemented. The policy states that we should not give undue weight to certain minority perspectives and, in a "common law" perspective, that includes not giving undue weight to certain minor aspects of the subject also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kato, you’re equivocating. I respectfully don’t agree with your suggestion that the content regarding Sappho’s “appearance” should be manipulated regarding it’s “emphasis” by moving out of it’s own section and into another section. And I stand by how I think it seems, which is exactly as I stated above.

I think Sappho’s “appearance” is interesting for a number of reasons — and deserves to be expanded, but the content doesn’t fit well with the section about her life, which is different, in that the section is attempting to get at what “little is known about Sappho's life for certain”. That seems to be the unifying idea, and it’s stated in the first sentence.

I’m afraid you’re idea of “interpreting the policies of Wikipedia” is too vague for me to understand. What I do get from you, and you can correct me if I’m mistaken, is that you sometimes respect the policies, and sometimes don’t. Which seems unprincipled, so I won’t assume. Gaustaag (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why you seem to think that I am trying to "equivocate" because I am not; you are jumping to faulty conclusions and assuming that I must have the worst possible motive for saying what I am saying. Look, if you really think that the content about Sappho's physical appearance is so important that the article needs to have a whole section about it, I am tired of arguing with you and I will not try to stop you, but I will state right from the beginning that I disagree with it and I think it is a bad idea. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

[comment deleted] Gaustaag (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Gaustaag, I do not poke around talk pages. I spend almost all my time here at Wikipedia writing articles and I have never even visited the Village Pump once. In fact, I am honestly not entirely sure what the "Village Pump" really is or why we have it, so I have no idea what on earth gives you the impression that that is what I do here. Believe it or not, I actually do not like arguing and my motive for contributing to Wikipedia is that I enjoy writing articles and spreading accurate and verifiable information. I always try to be friendly and respectful to other users and I am greatly sorry that I have apparently given you such a drastically skewed impression of who I am. The only reason why I am so grouchy towards you is because you keep insulting me and accusing me of being disingenuous. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I was mistaken, Kato, my comment was untrue and unfair. I apologize. I’ll try to delete it. Gaustaag (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing citations

Hi, several short citations currently don't point to long cites: note 28: Burn 1968; note 49: DeJean 1989; note 91: Reynolds 2000; and note 93: Woodard 2008. Hope this helps. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Added DeJean, and corrected Reynolds 2000 to Reynolds 2001; I don't know off the top of my head what Burn 1968 and Woodard 2008 refer to. Anyone else? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Burn 1968 is probably a typo for Burn 1960, and Woodard 2008 is probably something by Roger Woodard, perhaps The Ancient Languages of Europe from CUP. This is yet another brilliant example of why this system of citations is profoundly unhelpful and should never be used. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have found the Woodard citation in this diff. DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have also found "Burn1968". It was introduced in this edit. I have restored the reference as it stood before that edit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

lede picture

The picture of Sappho on the vase should replace the very dubious sculpture in the lede. T8612 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There are four known vases of Sappho, three of which are represented in this article. Which vase do you mean? Our best image of a vase is the Sappho Painter's kalpis (right), but I suspect the other vases are better known... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The first picture looks better imo. T8612 (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, looking into it further I am dubious about the copyright status of the Sappho Painter's vase, which is a concern. I prefer the Brygos Painter's vase as an image, but our photograph of it is not very good: the background is messy, you cannot see either the lower half of Sappho or the whole of her instrument, you can see reflections in the glass of the case the vase is kept in, her face is slightly out of focus. The third vase is okay, but the photo is not quite straight on, and there's problematic glare and reflection on the vase.

If we could get a good image of the Brygos painter's vase that would be ideal – there's not prospect of me being in Munich any time soon, though (or indeed Warsaw, Athens, or Bochum, where the other three Sappho-vases live.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

We could write to the relevant museums and ask for a suitable freely licensed picture. They wouldn't necessarily do it but they might. Haukur (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth, I’m curious: Did you or anyone else that you know of follow up on this? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't. But last time I contacted a museum they were happy to help so it's a strategy I recommend :) Haukur (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Sappho

It doesn't make sense to say that "by the medieval period, Sappho's works had been lost" and then in the next sentence "her works began to become accessible again in the sixteenth century, first in early printed editions of authors who had quoted her". Surely the authors who quoted her were themselves preserved in medieval manuscripts? Srnec (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source at the moment – I can check when I get home – but I'm fairly certain that "lost" is Reynolds' word. Yes, there were medieval manuscripts of Longinus and Dionysius Halicarnassus (one manuscript in the case of Longinus; our article on D.H. doesn't say and I don't know the textual history off the top of my head), but manuscripts can be lost and then rediscovered. And even if the existence of the manuscript is still known, if there's only one and it's not being looked at, it's quite possible for the fact that it quotes a Sappho poem to be lost, even if the manuscript is still there. And remember that many of the sources to quote Sappho's poetry, including D.H. and Longinus, wrote in Greek, and the resurgence in European scholars reading Greek was one of the key aspects of the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there might be a bit of (unintentional) equivocation here. My concern is that whereas independent transmission of her works may have ceased and whatever copies there were may have been lost in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way. They just printed quotations of Sappho that were never in any sense lost. As the article states earlier, "Until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, only the ancient quotations of Sappho survived." But were these ever, in any sense, lost? Srnec (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

the Renaissance did not rectify this in any way... were these every, in any sense, lost? Yes. I've had a little bit more time to dig, and Margaret Williamson explicitly says that these manuscripts were rediscovered in the Renaissance. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Williamson 1995? Can you give a page number? Thanks, Srnec (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Williamson 1995. p.43: quite a number of the treatises and commentaries in which Sappho is quoted were among the manuscripts discovered by Renaissance collectors Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To me the thrust of that passage is that they (the manuscripts with quotations) were not lost: This was not quite the end of Sappho. There were still texts by other authors containing excerpts from her poems ... The survival of even these texts was by no means assured ... In any case, the problem I have with the article text is that the "works" which were lost in the first sentence are not the same "works" that became accessible again in the Renaissance. The works that were lost (like Sappho 94) were not found in the Renaissance, rather relatively inaccessible quotations of her work became accessible through the printing press (with credit to Renaissance collectors). I have tweaked the wording in the article in a way which I think is still consistent with the citation. Let me know what you think. Srnec (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Images redux

Given that identification of ancient images of Sappho is a perennial subject of sturm und drang on this talkpage, I've put together some notes on what I can find out about all of the supposed ancient depictions available on Commons (plus a couple of well-known ones that we don't have illustrated!) here. In general, it's nothing we haven't discussed before: all identifications of ancient sculpture as depicting Sappho are tenuous at best.

Hopefully this is a useful resource. If anyone has any further sources on the identification of any of these works (in particular some of the sculptures) do add them – all contributions greatly appreciated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Subjectiveness

"Whilst her importance as a poet is confirmed from the earliest times, all interpretations of her work have been coloured and influenced by discussions of her sexuality."

This seems extremely subjective and of the opinion of the author of the content and not the reality. Sappho has long been know for her poetry. Not everything is about sexuality. Spiel (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, this was introduced by someone who has not otherwise edited this article with the summary "small changes for clarity". As this is a very strong claim that isn't supported by the body of the article, I have removed it from the lead. (Though I note that it does not at all contradict the claim that Sappho is known for her poetry!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Appearance

No reliable portrait of Sappho has survived; all extant representations, ancient and modern, are artists' conceptions. In the Tithonus poem she describes her hair as now white but formerly black. A literary papyrus of the second century AD describes her as very small. Alcaeus possibly describes Sappho as "violet-haired", which was a common Greek poetic way of describing dark hair. Some scholars dismiss this tradition as unreliable.

I am increasingly uncomfortable with this. The first sentence is true, though it's not exactly what the cited source is saying; Richter says that no ancient sculpture has been reliably identified as depicting Sappho, not that none of the ancient sculptures of Sappho are reliable likenesses. The second is true but I am incredibly uncomfortable with our article inferring details of Sappho's personal appearance from her poetry: aside from the fact that the speaker does not name herself as Sappho in fr.58, there's no reason to think that the poet would necessarily faithfully record her hair colour rather than e.g. use the contrast of black and white for poetic effect. Unless we can find reliable sources making this connection I think we should steer well clear. As for the literary papyrus, there are several sources rather better than Smyth's comments from 1900 which discuss in rather more depth why we shouldn't take that as a useful description: e.g. Marguerite Johnson, Sappho (2007); Mary Lefkowitz, The Lives of Greek Poets (2012); Jane McIntosh Snyder, "Sappho in Attic Vase-Painting" (1997).

Finally, the Alcaeus fragment is an enormous can of worms. Whether it mentions Sappho at all is disputed: it doesn't in Voigt's edition, nor in Liberman, Alcée (1999); Neri (2021) discusses the controversy in some depth and concludes that "μελλιχόμειδε Σάπφοι" is wrong. Even if it is right, citing the LSJ dictionary entry to support "a common poetic way" seems to be stretching the source way beyond the limits of what it actually says, and e.g. Snyder 1997 argues that it should be interpreted as meaning "O weaver of violets" rather than "violet-haired Sappho". And I can't lay my hands on a source at the moment, but I've definitely also seen it translated as "Sappho with violets in her hair". (Meanwhile, Yatromanolakis, Sappho in the Making (2008), goes so far as to say that the ascription of the fragment to Alcaeus is uncertain and it may have been authored by Sappho!)

I've tried to rewrite this in a way that I'm happy with, but I haven't been able to come up with anything which doesn't end up as footnotes upon footnotes of hedging and clarifying. Ultimately, I think the reason is that this doesn't really belong in the section of Sappho's life; the stories about her appearance are only relevant insofar as it tells us something about her reception. So I've cut it out; I'm going to try to fit some discussion of how Sappho's appearance is described in the sources (the Oxyrhynchus biography is not the only relevant source here!) into the section on reception. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Music

This article could use a bit more information about the music associated with Sappho—at the moment the only substantial information on it is hidden away in a note! ("Other musical inventions...", note n) For example, in her Grove article, the two leading scholars on Greek music doubt that she invented the Mixolydian mode (among other things), which is to be fair, a bit nonsensical anyways. Certainly there isn't a lot known about the music associated with her, but there is certainly more known than what is in the article. Would be happy to add some myself, if there is agreement from others that I should do so? (asking since this is a GA). Best – Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Music isn't really my area – as far as I'm concerned you should just go ahead and write something if you think there's something to be said! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to—as I said above, the only reason I came here first was to double check since its a GA. Will get to this in a few days. Aza24 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten about this, just delayed for now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the new infobox recently added by Laharmo1 was a good addition to the article, and an improvement on the previous infobox which was removed by Caeciliusinhorto about a month ago.
So 3 editors want an infobox, and 1 is against. I'm posting this here to try and get a consensus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That infobox wasn't a good addition. Nearly all the content in it was speculative and contested. As the article says, there are ten conjectures for the name of Sappho's father, and he does not appear to have been notable for anything else. Nor does her mother, about whom there is less speculation and indded less said at all, which is normal for ancient Greece. The sources for the names and number of her brothers are inconsistent. It's uncertain whether Sappho's mention of a Cleis may refer to a child or a lover, but the infobox says it's the possible name of her daughter, a daughter that we don't even know existed at all and conversely, that if she existed she was Sappho's only child. Yet if we have an infobox, such parameters are inevitably filled in by someone, sooner or later, because they're there, because why would they be there if they're not to be used, because the infobox would look insubstantial or useless without even those scraps.

And what do they tell us about Sappho? That the key information about her is who her father and mother were, who her brothers were, that she was a mother. That is utterly misleading and does our readers a gross disservice. The article's lead has its priorities right. Let it be the readers' focus. NebY (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

NebY perfectly explains my dislike for an infobox in this article. Virtually nothing about Sappho's life is certain, and infoboxes aren't set up to do nuance. Readers blindly looking for Facts™ in an infobox, without concern for the uncertainty surrounding them, is exactly what I would rather avoid. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that not much is known for sure about Sappho's life, that dosent mean there shouldnt be an infobox. For example, Menes has an infobox despite knowing almost nothing for sure about them. To add on to that, they might not have even existed. The readers of the infobox would know the uncertainty of the information. The dates of when she was born and died and how old she was when she died have circas next to them. With regard to her realatives, I wouldnt mind if they were removed (even though I wrote possibly next to their names). Laharmo1 (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Menes is a perfect example of why if I were benevelont dictator of Wikipedia, we'd do away with infoboxes on the grounds that editors can't be trusted with them. Of the "facts" included in that infobox, the dates are already included in the first sentence of the lead, and that his sucessor was Hor-Aha is apparently disputed – with a respectable minority opinion being that he was Hor-Aha! The only thing in that infobox which can usefully be digested as a simple fact and isn't already in the first sentence of the lead is the meaning of the name mnj – and that isn't visible on mobile! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the new infobox did a better job of making clear that most of this info was only 'possibly true'. Perhaps we could scrap the parents though, and add 3 of her famous poems. That would make the infobox more useful imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sappho
Kalpis painting of Sappho by the Sappho Painter (c. 510 BC), currently held in the National Museum, Warsaw
Born	c. 630 BC Lesbos
Died	c. 570 BC
Known for	Poetry
Notable work	Ode to Aphrodite, Sappho 31
Children	Cleïs (possibly)

It did, though I generally think that infoboxes do a bad job of conveying nuances, and simply saying "Father: Scamondronymos (possibly)" isn't super useful. Why only "possibly"? And for that matter, why are we suggesting more certainty about who her brothers were? Cleis is at least mentioned in Sappho's poetry, possibly as her daughter; Eurygios isn't in any surviving poems, and the other "brothers" aren't explicitly called her brothers in the one poem where they are explicitly named. (And André Lardinois, at least, has suggested that they were entirely fictional and only existed in Sappho's poetry).

I agree that if we do have to have an infobox, it would be useful to include some of Sappho's major works – probably the Ode to Aphrodite and Sappho 31. A minimalist infobox which doesn't contain anything actively questionable or misleading might look like the example to the right, but at that point I don't see what information this adds over just reading the first paragraph of the lead. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've added her brothers and possible daughter to the candidate infobox (right), because of the link to her poetry. Combined with the "Notable work" section, I think this makes the infobox a useful addition. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that Cleis might have been Sappho's daughter? That Sappho had a daughter whose name might have been Cleis? Or that Sappho might have had a daughter? If the latter, do you wish to imply that she only had one daughter, or only had one child, or that she had more than one child (note that the infobox says children, not child)?

You haven't explained why you added those three names as brothers, even though it's just been explained to you immediately above how uncertain it is that they were her brothers at all.

Your eagerness to fill in infobox parameters is entirely normal and illustrates the problem well. However clearcut a consensus might emerge here on which parameters should not be filled, subsequent editors will in good faith see those parameters missing and fill them in. That will be extremely difficult to manage; in each case, reversions will be hard to accept, explanations will have to be repeated, feelings will be hurt and everyone will be wearied, of this article and of Wikipedia. But it will keep happening, to no good purpose. None of these names are key infomation about Sappho, nor are any of these people otherwise notable.

Infoboxes are optional. (The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes that confirmed or established (depending on your POV) this ended a long and bruising conflict and it's to various editors credit that they are still active even after suffering severe sanctions.) An article without an infobox is not a vacuum waiting to be filled. NebY (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that [[Laharmo1 is a block-evader, therefore their opinion should be discounted. Graham87 03:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Graham87! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

An article doesn't need an infobox, but this article did have one for some time. I think Caeciliusinhorto was right in saying it was poor, and he removed it. So I've tried to work out with others what would make a good infobox here. Note the lead currently doesn't mention Sappho 31, so I think the infobox is now adding something. I've removed the brothers, and Cleis can go too if necessary. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The article had one for about 18 months, introduced in February 2021 by an editor with no other substantial contributions; for the previous twenty years it did just fine without one! The lack of infobox is also consistent with other similar articles: of the Nine lyric poets, only Pindar has an infobox; of Antipater's canon of female poets, only two of the nine (Nossis and Telesilla) have infoboxes. Pindar may be the only ancient poet where an infobox is justifiable (though the current example I would consider pretty useless), but the Telesilla and Nossis examples are not ones to emulate, frankly. In a perfect encapsulation of the problem of people filling in infobox parameters for the sake of it whether or not they are useful, discussed by NebY above, the infobox on Nossis has the gem "Resting place: unknown". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You illustrate the problem so well!. If someone who's trying to persuade us that an infobox would be a good idea writes, despite repeated explanations and objections, "Cleis can go too if necessary", imagine how much harder it would be to repeatedly persuade helpful parameter-filling editors to see the necessity, perceive the problem or even engage with the issue. NebY (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes