| Revision as of 23:02, 13 May 2013 editUcuchaBot (talk | contribs)Bots5,146 editsm Bot edit: This page will appear as today's featured article in the near future← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:34, 15 November 2024 edit undoWonder29 (talk | contribs)457 edits →Infobox changes |
| (712 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Richard Wagner/archive2 |
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Richard Wagner/archive2 |
|
|action5result=promoted |
|
|action5result=promoted |
|
|action5oldid=537234474 |
|
|action5oldid=537410058 |
|
|
|
|
|
| topic = music |
|
| topic = music |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=May 22, 2013 |
|
|maindate=May 22, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2017-05-22 |
|
|
|otd1oldid=781587297 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Wagner, Richard|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|musician-priority=High|listas=Wagner, Richard|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-priority=High|musician-work-group=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Composers|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Composers}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Richard Wagner|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Opera}} |
|
{{WikiProject Switzerland|class=FA|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Richard Wagner}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Arts|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Switzerland|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 15 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Richard Wagner/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== A few questions == |
|
== Cosima Wagner == |
|
A simple question to kick this section off: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed today only - sorry about that - that his wife ] is not mentioned in the lead, nor the infobox. Should she be mentioned? I think yes, not just a muse but co-founder of the ], and keeper of his legacy. -- ] (]) 05:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
* How should en dashes be used for page numbers? The article has both "261–3" and "276–278". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Added a line after the mention of Bayreuth, since it really was her specific effort that made a difference. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
The references to letters are fairly inconsistent. We have the following four: |
|
|
|
:: Thank you. I thought that now that he has an infobox, she should also have one. --] (]) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That would be a matter for her talk page, and in full honesty, not a topic I have any interest in partaking – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Did you see her talk page? - My point: I think these "discussions" have not helped to improve mutual understanding. She is no classical composer, and could just have a simple infobox as other festival directors (for example her husband), without another replay of the same old arguments. A dream? --] (]) 20:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Country of birth and death == |
|
* Wagner (1987) 199 Letter of 21 April 1850 |
|
|
|
I've tried to add Richard Wagner's country of birth and death into the infobox but have been reverted and told to see the talk page. There has been a discussion regarding the infobox but there has been no consensus against the inclusion of his country of birth or death. Adding this into the infobox is standard procedure and in no way harms the infobox or the article. So, I see no good reason as to how it benefits the article to remove such information. ] (]) 12:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
* Letter of April 1859, quoted in Daverio (208) 116 |
|
|
|
:The RFC was closed {{tq|There is a consensus to include the proposed infobox}} and the proposal did not include countries. ] (]) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
* Letter '''from''' Debussy to Pierre Louÿs, 17 January 1896 |
|
|
|
:: That doesn't mean that a new matter may not be discussed. --] (]) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
* Letter to Emile Naumann, April 1867, quoted in E. Naumann, Italienische Tondichter (1883) IV, 5 |
|
|
|
::Does every change to the infobox need to be discussed just because it was added via RFC? @]'s edits seem like obvious contextual information to add, in line with other biographies and the template guidance itself. And the comments on the RFC were really on whether to add one at all, not on whether to add the proposed draft one and freeze that. ] (]) 12:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::The closure specifically found consensus to add the proposed draft one, not whatever one anyone could think of. ] (]) 14:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
The Debussy letter reference has no "quoted in". Shouldn't the Naumann source be moved into the "Sources" section? |
|
|
|
::::Fair enough, that is what's in the closure message so it covers that point. ] (]) 15:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello, |
|
|
:I know this has been resolved but I wanted to say I agree with Helper201 on this. What's the point of not adding something if it specifies more detail. People who aren't even of great notice still have the full detail, see as an example. Admittedly, he is much older in the generations but if the information is there, what's the harm to it. I don't see the proposed issue here. Sure the closure message says that but that doesn't mean that it cannot be improved on. The whole point of the debate was to improve the article, and if we are seriously going to have to debate each change then that's gonna be an issue. ] (]) 18:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox changes== |
|
Lastly: |
|
|
|
{{Infobox person |
|
|
|
|
|
| name = Richard Wagner |
|
* He was once again assisted by the liberality of King Ludwig, but was still forced by his personal financial situation in 1877 to sell the rights of a number of his earlier miscellaneous works (including the Siegfried Idyll) to the publisher Schotts. |
|
|
|
| image = Wagner.png |
|
|
|
|
|
| image_size = 275 |
|
Are the words "earlier" (rather than "unpublished") and "miscellaneous" (rather than "non-operatic") necessary here? ] (]) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| caption = Wagner in 1871 |
|
|
|
|
|
| birth_place = ] |
|
:: I suggest the format for citing letters should be: , , . Letter from to dated . |
|
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth date|1813|05|22|df=y}} |
|
:: Thus: Wagner (1987), 1999. Letter from Wagner to Liszt of 21 April 1850. |
|
|
|
| death_date = {{death date and age|1883|02|13|1813|05|22|df=y}} |
|
:: Page numbering formats should I think be: 261-3, or 276-8; 284-95; 295-301. |
|
|
|
| death_place = ] |
|
:: I have given a better (and corrected) source for the Rossini quote; will find a source for the Debussy quote. |
|
|
|
| resting_place = ], ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| occupation = {{hlist|Composer|conductor|writer}} |
|
::You are quite right of course about deleting unnecessary words and, even better, replacing them with meaningful descriptors - I don't think it needs to await a reference here to make such corrections!! Best ---] (]) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| works = {{ubl|]|]||]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| spouse = {{unbulleted list|] (1836{{endash}}1866)|] (1870{{endash}}1883)}} |
|
== What's next? == |
|
|
|
| children = {{hlist|]|]|]}} |
|
|
|
|
|
| signature=Richard Wagner Signature.svg |
|
Is an FAC nomination next? ] (]) 10:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| signature_size=175 |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
: Well still a bit of cleaning up to do. I have never done FAC nomination before - do we ideally want to get it lined up for RW's birthday 22 May? Doesn't it go to Peer Review first? - I am vague about procedures - can anyone out there advise?--] (]) 15:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You can have a peer review, but among the comments you have already had, you have effectively had one. I suggest that you ask Brianboulton if he feels it is ready. I note you have not yet dealt with all of my comments (or at least if you've considered and rejected them, you haven't said so).--] (]) 16:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Before we start to follow ] rules, there are a few things that I would like to sort out. As for a peer review, there has already been one done by ], and there numerous comments on this talk page. It has been edited 420 times since ] made his FA proposal. ] (]) 16:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't yet had a chance to catch up with all of ]'s comments....so let's plough through the various bits and pieces and review the situation at the end of the month....... --] (]) 13:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:That sounds good. I'll give it another run through if you like prior to a nomination.--] (]) 13:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Titles == |
|
|
|
|
|
] says that titles of books and pieces of music should be in italics, thus - ''Mein Leben'', ''Parsifal''. Titles of essays and other shorter works should be in quotes , thus - "A Communication to my Friends".--] (]) 23:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rock music para == |
|
|
|
|
|
] suggests removing. Removal of this section (which is already a lot smaller than it used to be) in the past has resulted in storms of protest. I think on balance it is worth retaining; I am almost inclined to add ]'s remark that 'if Wagner were alive to day, he'd be playing with ]' but perhaps I will restrain myself....--] (]) 14:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comments == |
|
|
|
|
|
Some time ago I replied to a comment that ] made on my talk page. As he has not modified the article on the basis of any of what I wrote there and has not commented on it either, I will repost it here, to be sure that he reads it: |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Start of quotation''' |
|
|
|
|
|
There are several things that are of concern to me: |
|
|
|
|
|
:(Disclaimer: English is not my first language, so that may influence my areas of focus.) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* "described as marking the start of modern music" |
|
|
|
|
|
:Wouldn't "described as the start of modern music" be better? |
|
|
|
|
|
:* At times there is "''Ring'' cycle", but at others there is "''Ring Cycle''". I think the first form is better (as the second is not related to the work's full title in German). |
|
|
|
|
|
: "However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and support from) her husband Otto." |
|
|
|
|
|
:What is the "(and support from)" part supposed to convey? |
|
|
|
|
|
:* "''Richard Wagner's Visit to Rossini (Paris 1860): and an Evening at Rossini's in Beau-Sejour (Passy) 1858''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:This is missing an ISBN number. I found two at http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/10782590?versionId=46412229. Sources also differ on the use of a colon in the title; some use a semicolon, others a comma and some nothing instead of it. Some of them also capitalise the word "an". |
|
|
|
|
|
:* "''Italienische Tondichter, von Palestrina bis auf die Gegenwart''" |
|
|
|
|
|
:A Google search shows various approaches to capitalising the title of this work. Google Books also adds ": Eine reihe von vortragen" at the end of the title. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''End of quotation''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I would also like to stress that there should be a link to a sound file of the ''Siegfried'' leitmotif found in this article. It may seem redundant to musically learned people or those with perfect pitch, but I think you will change your minds if you place yourselves in the position of somebody who has little/no knowledge of the opera or can't read sheet music. ] (]) 23:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Apologies for overlooking - I lost myself in ]'s comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
:1) "''Ring'' cycle" / "''Ring Cycle''". This is a matter of taste, but if we have to go for one or the other I suggest "''Ring'' cycle" (which allows for the shortened form ''Ring'' as well). |
|
|
:2) "described as marking the start of modern music" - seems OK to me as it gives the opera the 'weight' of a marker. |
|
|
:3) (and support from) - I will correct this. |
|
|
:4) Titles: As the sources seem to differ, I have no problems with whichever versions are preferred. |
|
|
:5) sound file link: It seems to me rather arbitrary to link these couple of bars when there are no soiund files which give an inidication of Wagner's musical style as he meant it to be heard. I don't see sound file links of this sort in other composer articles. I would be grateful for other opinions on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks, --] (]) 08:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I still don't understand the "support" sentence. ] (]) 08:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::: 'However, Wagner continued his correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with (and financial support from) her husband Otto.' Sorry, can you explain what is unclear about this? Best, --] (]) 10:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: "Wagner continued" implies Wagner continued correspondence with Mathilde and his friendship with her husband Otto. But is it possible "to continue financial support from"? I would rephrase it like this: "and his friendship with her husband Otto (who kept supporting him financially)." ] (]) 11:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Try the new version. Best, --] (]) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What now? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I feel that I have finished tinkering with the article for the present. Do others have changes they propose as regards FA status? When, in any case, should we submit - now, asking to keep the date of 22 May 2013, or nearer the date?--] (]) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I may go through the whole article in the near future, and will post here or edit it if needed. As for ], I would definitely go for 22 May 2013, if that date is possible. ] (]) 13:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I got distracted but hope to have another look at the article soon.--] (]) 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lutheran? == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has just been excised from this article. Is that justifiable? ] (]) 12:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Now that I think of it, the article might mention Wagner's religious beliefs and practices; at the moment, it "only" discusses his philosophical affinities and Nietzsche's perception of his late personality. ] (]) 12:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I have added sometihng ] as some of his late writings on Xtianity were already mentioned.--] (]) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== NPV == |
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the passages that sound biased/"peacockish" to me: |
|
|
|
|
|
*"to ensure musical coherence" |
|
|
|
|
|
"With the goal of providing musical coherence" sounds better to me. The passage also seems to be unsourced. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"mature" |
|
|
|
|
|
This word makes three appearances in the article (and in one of them it appears to belong to an unsourced sentence), but there is no solid definition of it. (For an example of what I would deem an appropriate solution, I refer you to ], which I wrote.) |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>*"but cannot '''credibly''' be regarded" |
|
|
|
|
|
*"who proved to be a true friend" |
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like original research. "Who proved loyal" or "" seems better to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"is without '''credible''' evidence" </s> |
|
|
|
|
|
More to come (though not on this topic anymore). ] (]) 21:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'Credible evidence' - the sources cited indicate that that the evidence is not credible, hence the citation is correct. This cannot be construed as either 'peacockish' or biased. Where an editor provides a source, ] should apply. There seems to be some problem with appreciation of English usage here: 'who proved to be a true friend' means exactly the same as 'who proved to be loyal'. Similarly 'to ensure/with the goal of'. 'Mature' is a standard dictionary word without 'peacock' overtones, it simply means what it says. Most particualrly I bridle at the suggestion, in the heading of this section, that the items selected are in any way NPV. A source is a source. If an editor has a counter-source, let him or her quote it. If we are going to nit-pick in this fruitless and petty way over all the wordings in the article which different editors don't especially fancy, we will all be wasting I think a lot of time. The essence it seems to me of WP is that we concentrate on the facts and verifiability. We will also risk sacrificing the work that many editors have undertaken in attmepting to get this article up to FA. (I point out by the way that none of the wordings raised by ], most of which were in the article when it obtained GA status, were ever objected to by any reviewer). |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would appreciate the comments of other editors on all this. Thanks, --] (]) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I repeat what I said before—attribution is my main concern. Providing a source is not the same as providing attribution. "Mature" implies a level of quality, which necessarily leads to expressions such as "great", "outstanding", etc. ] (]) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::On a slightly different note, the sentence about Liszt premiering ''Lohengrin'' appears to need another source. ] (]) 23:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It's given in the existing citations, but I will add yet another.--] (]) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ambiguous == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few passages in this article that I find unclear (or might be unclear to others). Here they are: |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>*"with orchestral accompaniment" |
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to remember the orchestration was done by Wagner, but not all readers may know that.</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
: This is a reference to the '']''. Wagner orchestrated only "Träume". The rest were orchestrated by ] (] has done a more recent version). -- ] </sup></font>]] 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*"integrated musical expression" |
|
|
|
|
|
What does this mean? Is it the opposite of number opera? A wikilink may help readers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the following improvements to the infobox to bring it more into line with other infoboxes on Misplaced Pages: |
|
<s>*"Cosima Wagner, 28 March 1881" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* More representative photo of Wagner in his signature velvet suit and beret |
|
This is a reference (currently #157). It lacks either 1978 or 1994, and mentions no page number.</s> ] (]) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Addition of resting place, occupations, period, spouses, children |
|
: Points 1 and 3 dealt with. Point 2 rephrased for clarity. Best, --] (]) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
* Notable works (the ]) |
|
::Thank you for that, but I still fail to understand what "integrated" means in this case. Is there a synonym or wikilink that could make it clearer to me? ] (]) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am afraid it means only what it says; that leifmotifs increase the density of references which the music can evoke in the listener.--] (]) 16:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Density as in "quantity of motifs", or "motivic saturation"? ] (]) 16:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above RFC was on whether or not to include the infobox, not a restriction on its content. I will leave several weeks for discussion and alterations and then proceed with changes. |
|
== ] as FA candidate == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
The discussion ] contains a number of points, particularly in the recent reviews by ] and ], which spark some general issues on which project members may wish to reflect and/or comment.--] (]) 15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The discussion above proposed a specific infobox, with several commenters noting that it was "modest"/"mercifully short". This proposal adds considerable content for limited benefit, and in some cases detriment. I also don't think it to be advantageous to highlight an AI-edited image. ] (]) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Words and Music== |
|
|
|
::The above discussed (quote) "Should ''an'' infobox be added to this article?" Not ''this'' infobox. There is no substantial discussion on the details of the infobox. The vote was not on the ''length'' of infobox, but its ''existence''. |
|
]'s claim that Wagner wrote the libretto for the Ring before he wrote the music is of extreme importance. It shows how he had emphasized conceptual narrative before he was influenced by Schopenhauer. After reading Schopenhauer, Wagner considered music to be absolutely primary.] (]) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Lestrade |
|
|
|
::Now let us discuss the ''contents'' of the infobox. |
|
|
::Alternate images can be proposed. The current image is both poor quality (blurry) and non-representative; Wagner looks like a curmudgeon, which does not reflect his colourful and somewhat effeminate personality. |
|
|
::In what was does the proposal add "detriment"? As a Wagnerian, I know it provides a helpful overview of Wagner at a glance. He is unique amongst composers in that his reputation and interest rests almost entirely on the works few highlighted (]). The article itself fails to highlight these works cleanly as such, therefore the infobox benefits the article. |
|
|
::] (]) 00:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the discussion: a proposal was presented, several commenters substantially referenced aspects of that proposal, and consensus was found specifically for implementation of that proposal. |
|
== Blockquote == |
|
|
|
:::The image you've proposed is IMO not at all appropriate. If there is an alternative you wish to propose, feel free; I think the present one is fine. |
|
|
:::Your proposal adds several datapoints that are irrelevant to his reputation and interest. If you wanted to propose ''just'' replacing the current works parameter with some list of works, that might warrant further discussion, but I don't think things like the dates of his marriages warrant inclusion. ] (]) 01:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The discussion was proposed before the infobox was presented. A "mock-up" was then presented. Please provide what makes you think anybody in the discussion was under the impression that the mock-up could never be improved upon. That goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, which is a process of constant improvement and refinement, even for "featured articles": |
|
|
:::::''Richard Wagner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, '''if you can update or improve it, please do so.''''' |
|
|
::::Dates are standard for spouses on info boxes, especially when there's more than one. See ]. Wagner's family is especially of significant encyclopedia interest (many have their own articles), as his lineage remains relevant as maintainers of the annual ], as well as for their notorious relations with ] during that era. |
|
|
::::] (]) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article contains a quote from ''The Perfect Wagnerite'', which is meant to be a "blockquote", but is not displayed as one (at least on my computer). Does anyone here know how to fix that? ] (]) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
:::::Again, this does not appear to be an accurate characterization. No one has suggested that improvements could never exist. You'd just need to get agreement that your proposed changes are improvements. ] (]) 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Hmmm.. it appears to be a consequence of the image on the left.....--] (]) 21:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |
|
::::::Reverting all change to the infobox back to the current one does not suggest that improvements could not exist? ] (]) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Also prefer the current short one. ] (]) 01:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Oppose''' AI images don't belong on Misplaced Pages (unless the article is about the AI image), especially in featured articles. They are inherently inaccurate. ] (]) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Noted, updated with non-colorized photo. ] (]) 05:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - I think the spouse and children should be added. Perhaps occupation, others I could take it or leave it. ] (]) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - I think your best appraoch is to discuss the changes to parameter individually. While the box looks similar to the one I proposed to have ''at least on the talk page'' in 2013 (which caused some uproar and me accused of battleground behaviour although it was an approach proposed by a then sitting arbitrator), I'd now try to keep it shorter. |
|
|
*# caption = Wagner in (whatever year) |
|
|
*# image = (others can decide) |
|
|
*# resting-place = (no) |
|
|
*# period = (no) |
|
|
*# occupation = Composer · conductor · writer |
|
|
*# notableworks = ] |
|
|
*# spouse = ] (1836{{endash}}1866) · ] (1870{{endash}}1883) |
|
|
*# children = ] · ] · ] |
|
|
*# signature = (don't care) |
|
|
*: --] (]) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Updated per suggestions ] (]) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ec}} '''Oppose''' Caption is awful (fails ]); Resting place is trivia, Notable works are OR - there's a link to the full list of all works, so this is superfluous, Period fails ] and a list of family members hardly provides much relevant information for readers. Changing it from "Infobox person" to "Infobox writer": poor - why pigeon-hole things even further than this reductive excrescence does already. - ] (]) 07:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|Not great. ] (]) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
::Caption is awful (fails WP:CAPTION) |
|
|
:::Fixed. |
|
|
::Resting place is trivia |
|
|
:::Wrong, Wahnfried and Bayreuth are core subjects in Wagnerian studies and its notable he was buried at his residence. |
|
|
::Notable works are OR |
|
|
:::Wrong, see ] |
|
|
::there's a link to the full list of all works, so this is superfluous |
|
|
:::Link to Wagner's obscuria is unhelpful except for niche interest. The article already has that link so the ''link'' is superfluous. The article fails to highlight his important works which is useful to readers. |
|
|
::family members hardly provides much relevant information for readers |
|
|
:::Wagner's family is of ''significant'' importance to Wagnerian studies, they still maintain the ], and they formed the ]. Siegfried was a notable composer, and Eva notably married HS Chamberlain which re-oriented the political direction of Bayreuth towards the far-right. |
|
|
::Period fails MOS:NOFORCELINK |
|
|
:::No, it doesn't. But removed per recommendations. |
|
|
::Changing it from "Infobox person" to "Infobox writer": poor - why pigeon hold things even further than this reductive excrescence does already |
|
|
:::Wagner was a prolific writer as well as composer. ] accused him of ]. |
|
|
::'''It appears to me that do not seem to have sufficient knowledge of Wagner to judge these matters.''' ] (]) 20:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm used to the slurs and sleights from IB warriors, and this crass idiocy is in line with expectations. I have a decent grasp of Wagnerian subject matter thanks, no doubt you think you're superior to everyone who disagrees with you. Keep you childish insults to yourself - there are still ArbCom restrictions over civility in these discussions. - ] (]) 08:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::In terms of the substantive points, little of what you say is relevant when discussing the IB. An example: "Wahnfried and Bayreuth are core subjects in Wagnerian studies": but people coming to article won't know that and won't understand it from the one line in the IB. It doesn't illuminate the subject for readers: it confuses them by burying core information in with excessive details. The same for the list of family members: your explanation may provide context, but having it in the IB without context does not aid readers. And the point about using IB writer is meaningless. He is primarily known as a composer, even though he had many other strings to his bow, but to select one format (and not the one he is most well known for) seems perverse. Keep it broader, given he had a broader range of activities than just writer. - ] (]) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I made no "slurs and slights". "Caption is awful", "Period fails MOS:NOFORCELINK"(??), "reductive excrescence" - these are ''your'' slights, to which we can now add "you think you're superior to everyone who disagrees with you", "crass idiocy" and "childish insults" I never made, all symptomatic of your own ]. |
|
|
:::::You are not trying to have a fruitful discussion, but dragging it down with pedantry and now accusations of "incivility" to kill the project to affirm your own anti-infobox biases. |
|
|
:::::While you make your hostile and unfruitful comments, I have already been compromising based on ''useful'' feedback from other people: |
|
|
:::::* Changed image from AI-coloured one per feedback |
|
|
:::::* Removed period per feedback |
|
|
:::::* Re-formatted "children" per feedback |
|
|
:::::I am very open to further changes, if made in good faith. Your original post was merely anti-infobox hysteria given in bad faith and not helpful to any productive discussion. I invite you this discussion, though you should aim for a better arguments that explain the why behind position and not just make baseless blanket assertions. ] (]) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You certainly ''have'' made slights and slurs, as everyone can see. In case you can't see, the following are unacceptable, which is why I left you a 'civility in infobox' notice on your talk page: |
|
|
::::::*"It appears to me that do not seem to have sufficient knowledge of Wagner to judge these matters" |
|
|
::::::*"I will make changes to the article as I see suited, without consulting a cabal of pedants first" |
|
|
::::::*"I fail to recognize your authority or anybody else's over mine on a subject I have spent over 20 years investigating" |
|
|
::::::*"If people lack "appetite" for this discussion then they can go nitpick inboxes somewhere else. I assure you my passion for Wagner is much deeper than any wiki editor's predilection for pedantry. :)" |
|
|
::::::Unfortunately you have continued in the same vein, and accused me of further nonsense simply for having a different opinion to you. My comments have been made in good faith: they are as relevant as yours or anyone else's, despite the lies and slurs you have continued to post. Should you post further incivilities, there will be repercussions. - ] (]) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Now compare to your own comments: |
|
|
:::::::* "Caption is awful" |
|
|
:::::::* "reductive excrescence" |
|
|
:::::::* "crass idiocy" |
|
|
:::::::* "childish" |
|
|
:::::::'''Please list the "lies" I have said. Or I can add "libel" to the above list.''' |
|
|
:::::::'''Please quote where you made a constructive criticism.''' |
|
|
:::::::I'm not afraid whatsoever of your intimidation tactics and threats ("Should you post further incivilities, there will be repercussions") which is all targeted to shut down this conversation so you can get your own way, rather than having an open and vibrant discussion to improve wikipedia. You should be ashamed. |
|
|
:::::::] (]) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Again the same lie that I am trying to shut down the conversation: it is a lie. What I am doing is pointing out that there are repercussions for being uncivil on WP, particularly in IB discussions. If you wish to continue being abusive to people, that will come at a cost. As to my comments, describing a caption as "awful" or an IB as "reductive excrescence" isn't uncivil (how you think the words "reductive excrescence" when describing an IB are uncivil is mind-boggling, but each to their own). I have made my point about the flaws in your suggested additions and don't need to do any more than that - my opinion on the matter is as valid as yours or anyone else's. You have not managed to refute my points at all, and others will comment on your suggestions as they see fit. I'm going to step back for while as the aggressive incivility bores the living daylights out of me. - ] (]) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Your original comments was highly insulting and unhelpful and you set the tone of uncivility. You're aware everybody can read that for themselves, right? You reap what you sow. |
|
|
:::::::::Despite this I did respond to you points fairly and even incorporated one into the infobox. If you have further opinions I am glad to hear them. Threatening action over "civility" though, let us not have the pot call the kettle black. ] (]) 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If you believe the article fails to highlight what you think it should highlight, then the solution is to propose changes to the article text - per ] the article should remain complete with the infobox ignored. ] (]) 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I will make changes to the article as I see suited, without consulting a cabal of pedants first, thanks. I fail to recognize your authority or anybody else's over mine on a subject I have spent over 20 years investigating, and I dare say there are many wrongs on Wagner's articles awaiting righting. Changes are coming, I suggest you fasten your seat belt. ] (]) 05:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatb}} |
|
|
*'''Comment''' There's probably too many changes here to find a consensus. The current image is fine, but that could be a separate discussion if there's some support for the change. There's very ] for the interpretation of ] cited above. Sometimes changes to infoboxes can be contentious so making smaller changes is probably an easier route than making all these different changes at one time. ] (]) 20:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hat|Not great. ] (]) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*:This was an invitation to discuss changes and develop the infobox, not establish a consensus. I'm ignoring all support/oppose flags as these are meaningless, people do not yet know what they are supporting or opposing. After the infobox is finalized, then we can have a consensus vote. ] (]) 20:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::No, you began "I propose the following improvements to the infobox ..." and ended "I will leave several weeks for discussion and alterations and then proceed with changes". I doubt it will work that way. Opposes will remain valid unless changed, which is what Nemov is telling you I think. Most have no appetite for weeks of discussion, & then a vote. ] (]) 04:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::No, I will be making a new heading to vote on the finalized info box with a formal vote. If people lack "appetite" for this discussion then they can go nitpick inboxes somewhere else. I assure you my passion for Wagner is much deeper than any wiki editor's predilection for pedantry. :) ] (]) 04:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::"{{tq|cabal of pedants}}"? Good grief... someone's not going to last long on here without a change of approach. I've left you details on the incivility restrictions surrounding IB discussions. I strongly advise you read and inwardly digest. - ] (]) 08:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::I don't find it civil to shut down IB discussions because "I don't like them". ] (]) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::It's a lie to suggest that is what is happening here. You have been requested to be civil to other uses, that is all. - ] (]) 17:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::Your original post: |
|
|
*::::::::Oppose Caption is awful (fails WP:CAPTION); Resting place is trivia, Notable works are OR - there's a link to the full list of all works, so this is superfluous, Period fails MOS:NOFORCELINK and a list of family members hardly provides much relevant information for readers. Changing it from "Infobox person" to "Infobox writer": poor - why pigeon hold things even further than this reductive excrescence does already. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::Set the hostile tone which now you wish to wash your hands clean of and gaslight me as the troublemaker. Despite this, I responded to your points in kind. My patience however is not a limitless resource. Again, you should be ashamed for what you are doing here. ] (]) 17:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::::More untruthfulness. "I will make changes to the article as I see suited, without consulting a cabal of pedants first", "I fail to recognize your authority or anybody else's over mine on a subject I have spent over 20 years investigating" and "If people lack "appetite" for this discussion then they can go nitpick inboxes somewhere else. I assure you my passion for Wagner is much deeper than any wiki editor's predilection for pedantry" are all from you and most pre-date my first comment. I'll let others determine who set the tone and who is trying to do the gaslighting. I have no shame in my good faith comments and in asking you repeatedly to reign in your incivility. - ] (]) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::::None of those are uncivilized. I can make changes to the article if I want without consulting people first. I don't even need to log in to do it. No editor has authority over another editor. People ''are'' nitpicking this infobox tediously. Many wikipedia editors are pedants, turning wikipedia into a suffocating bureaucracy, this is well-known and reported in the media. |
|
|
*:::::::::Being presented with truths you don't want to hear is not "incivility". ] (]) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hatb}} |
|
|
*'''Update''' Per discussion, list of "notable works" has been removed and replaced with links to his stage works, compositions, and prose works. ] (]) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
**] - Misplaced Pages's rules are clear: {{green|The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.}} Directing the poor reader to another article instead is an insult to his or her intelligence. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
**:I do not see how links (which are standard on infoboxes all over Misplaced Pages) has anything to do with supplanting key facts in an article. Which facts do you find "supplanted"? This is a total non-sequitur. And the existing infobox already has links! By your logic, there should be no hypertext links ''at all'' in Misplaced Pages articles, which is absurd. ] (]) 20:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Nikkimaria and SchroCat. The current infobox is much better than the proposed infobox as it is more concise. The proposals do not add any "key information" that would be helpful in the infobox. -- ] (]) 23:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:The current infobox has the following deficiencies: |
|
|
*:1. The image is of poor quality and non-representative of Wagner. |
|
|
*:2. The date of birth and death can be gleaned from the first sentence of the article and serves no purpose in itself |
|
|
*:3. The list of compositions dumps readers into Wagner's obscuria and does not highlight his relevant stage works he is famous for |
|
|
*:The new infobox: |
|
|
*:1. Improves the image of Wagner in both quality and representation |
|
|
*:2. Adds stage works, compositions, and prose, allowing users to quickly access precisely which works they are interested in |
|
|
*:3. Adds important family members. The Wagner dynasty is of extreme relevance to Wagner beyond what almost any other infobox that contains this information. If it is not relevant to Wagner I daresay they misunderstand Wagnerism, and every infobox of the hundreds of that exist should also remove this information. Go fight ''that'' battle. |
|
|
*:Any questions or constructive ideas are welcomed. I see you are a fan of ], if you want to swim in the deep end with us Wagnerians, be prepared to explain yourself fully. |
|
|
*:] (]) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
I've tried to add Richard Wagner's country of birth and death into the infobox but have been reverted and told to see the talk page. There has been a discussion regarding the infobox but there has been no consensus against the inclusion of his country of birth or death. Adding this into the infobox is standard procedure and in no way harms the infobox or the article. So, I see no good reason as to how it benefits the article to remove such information. Helper201 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose the following improvements to the infobox to bring it more into line with other infoboxes on Misplaced Pages:
The above RFC was on whether or not to include the infobox, not a restriction on its content. I will leave several weeks for discussion and alterations and then proceed with changes.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Wagner in 1871