::::::::::Try also respecting the fact that someone has English as their fourth language, or is less careful when editing talk pages than articles. "I respect a person"—that's commendable. But what does it have to do with infoboxes in the next decade? [[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Try also respecting the fact that someone has English as their fourth language, or is less careful when editing talk pages than articles. "I respect a person"—that's commendable. But what does it have to do with infoboxes in the next decade? [[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
==22 May 1813-2013==
==22 May 1813-2013==
Line 331:
Line 328:
::Amen to that, ''as Gerda would say''. --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 13:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
::Amen to that, ''as Gerda would say''. --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 13:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I think my quoting Tristan will have delayed the archiving anyway. I see that Melot has been trying to show Marke where to look for vandals.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 13:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
== Rhein/Dresden ==
Why is Wagner crying at the Rhein associated with his being moved to Dresden in this article? Dresden is on the Elbe not the Rhein. ([[Special:Contributions/98.14.178.109|98.14.178.109]] ([[User talk:98.14.178.109|talk]]) 15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC))
Revision as of 16:03, 22 May 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Wagner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article falls within the scope of the Richard Wagner WikiProject, a collaboration to develop articles on the composer and his operas. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!Richard WagnerWikipedia:WikiProject Richard WagnerTemplate:WikiProject Richard WagnerRichard Wagner articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland 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.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
I don't see that this 'advice' has any formal validation whatever. It is just one editor's idea, and not a very good one, imo, as it will encourage some smartass to put the ugly column you have created on the main page. So merely placing this here at this time is I'm afraid Gerda uncommonly parallel to a provocative act of bad faith. Don't expect me to smile. --Smerus (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I heard "bad faith" before. Nikkimaria who gave this advice, quoting Newyorkbrad, is hardly known to be pro infobox. I think it's a reasonable advice, and I don't know what you mean by the main page. If you mean the article, I know many people who will know to revert. Now I smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let's sing the song of "bad faith" again. As soon as somebody raises something you don't like, Smerus, it's "bad faith" - even though it's advice that comes from two other respected editors. Nobody's fooled by your mean-spirited attempt to smear Gerda and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting comment! I am delighted that RexxS has found time to divert himself from scuba-diving to consider Wagner. I certainly realise the implications of a 'bad faith' imputation, which I considered carefully, and used here for the first time ever, I believe, on Wikipedia. By asserting, however, that I make this accusation 'as soon as somebody raises something I don't like', and further more by calling me 'mean-spirited' and a 'smear'er, RexxS is adopting precisely the ad hominem arguments he purports to deplore, which perhaps puts his valuable contribution in context. Not, of course, that I am accusing him of bad faith.--Smerus (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cite (in case you somehow missed it, it's only a few lines above this) "Nobody's fooled by your mean-spirited attempt to smear Gerda". But is not RexxS able to defend himself?--Smerus (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I can. Let me explain: If I called you an "ill-informed Luddite with the reading comprehension of a dead sponge", that would be a personal attack and ad hominem. But I wouldn't do that because I don't know you from Adam; you might be a really nice, intelligent, well-informed guy, but I wouldn't know. What I do know is that in the very first response in this thread, you maligned a respected editor who has not an ounce of bad faith in her - instead of addressing the issue of improving this article. The comment was mean-spirited. If you are telling me that was uncharacteristic of you, then fine; let's get back to discussing this infobox. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will readily admit that, if, for example, I were to allege that your comments were (shall we say) "mean spirited" and an "attempt to smear", and, without any evidence, were to claim that (say) you always responded to those who disagreed with you with accusations of bad faith, that would certainly be an ad hominem attack - I should be fascinated to learn why it does not qualify as such when you apply these terms to me. Do tell. --Smerus (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, that "ugly column" snark was completely out of line! Per MOS:INFOBOX: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Simply raising the issue does not warrant such an ad hominem attack as this. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that some variant of {{infobox person}} is NOT used in this article. And frankly, I strongly FAVOR having infoboxes in any biography, they are quite suitable. But to the point, if you oppose something, remember WP:NPA and simply state your position without attacking others. Montanabw(talk)21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I strongly favour the use of infoboxes, but I can see no point to this action than to try to drum up support when the article becomes FA and encourage an editor to move the box to the article space. If an issue has already been discussed it should not be disingenuously reintroduced. It's unacceptable and should be removed from here. Paul B (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I mostly love infoboxes in any other article about some composers, I am unfortunately going to oppose it per WP:COMPOSERS. Also, the use of an infobox for composers like these are mostly contrary to the strategic goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you're obviously fond of ALLCAPLINKS, I'm going to suggest you read WP:LOCALCON which says: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (and LOCALCON is a policy, btw). The community consensus is documented at MOS:INFOBOX (yes, it's part of the Manual of Style):
"An infobox template is an infobox that uses the template software feature. They are a broad class of templates commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject.
These boxes are designed to be placed into main articles related to the topic area, usually at the top next to the lead section.
...
The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
So, I'm going to suggest that you think again about trying to import a local consensus from a project to usurp a decision that properly belongs to a discussion on this very page. Your argument violates the consensus in both the applicable policy (WP:CON) and guideline (MOS), so you're going to need some pretty strong reasons to defend it.
Please feel free to supply the reference to where the use of infoboxes anywhere is "contrary to the strategic goals" of the WMF. And if you suggest it puts off new editors, I'm going to mock you for unsubstantiated speculation and ask where you got that made-up piece of misinformation from? --RexxS (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I read WP:LOCALCON and I understand where you're coming from. So far, the infobox topic has been divided here. If there is a consensus to include an infobox, it may stay, but if there is no consensus, it may not stay. This is a controversial topic indeed. I have obviously expressed concerns about using infoboxes in the past, especially with regards to composers. My contention is that the info box should not go into the article because infoboxes can lead to edit wars between those with pro-infobox and con-infobox and various discussions involving it, as well as numerous RfCs on this matter. These issues have often lead to other issues, especially with the Georg Solti fiasco back in August, which led to Tim riley's temporary retirement and Andy Mabbett's topic ban from editing the TFAs of the day. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I disagree with the way in which Smerus chose to voice his concerns, it seems they have been realized here. I apologize for suggesting the idea. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Smerus' assessment of Nikkimaria's advice to propose infoboxes on talk pages rather than adding them to articles without discussing them first. I think Gerda did the right thing. As to the infobox itself: it completely fails as a short summary of Wagner's significance – it is way too big/long. Some details: Cosima's birthname is much more interesting than her married name; some of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren are much more interesting than his children. What's with the bottom link "more details" to Template:Richard Wagner? Lastly, on the way the coding of infoboxes has gone recently: the proliferation of specialised templates like {{Plainlist}}, {{Collapsible list}}, {{Timeline-event}} makes infoxes certainly less accessible and editable to the average editor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my suggestion (and, from the first post here, it would appear Gerda's also) was to post the infobox on talk instead of adding it to the article, rather than before. Smerus' fear appears to be that the former would become the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael: We need the first two templates so that lists are marked as lists. It's not just infoboxes, of course, as anyone using a screen reader will tell you. I'm sure that Graham87 will say that he's quite comfortable with short lists with commas as separators, but as the list gets longer, marking it up properly lets him hear (if he chooses) something like "List of 8 items: First item: ... (eight items spoken) ... end of list". Some of our lists use <br /> to separate items and that sounds very annoying to continually hear "new line", and as a result that always needs to be changed. So although less experienced editors don't have to learn how to mark up lists to be more accessible - because others can do that for them - they need to understand that blocking efforts to improve accessibility on the encyclopedia really isn't doing a favour to our readers.
@Nikki: Since the purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article, I think Smerus has a point, however badly contextualised. I would prefer to use the infobox here to see if it can be used in the article. We can actually chop and change it here and see if we can meet everyone's wishes. Personally, I think it's too big and contains information that doesn't fit with the requirement at MOSINFOBOX: "... keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." I'd be keen to work with anybody open-minded enough to explore a smaller, leaner version. If at the end, consensus says we don't use it, then so be it. It is possible though that something more palatable to everyone might emerge and be usable. --RexxS (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the advantages of those templates for sight-impaired readers, although I think they may sometimes be overstated. My unqualified use of the word "accessible" was wrong; I meant "more difficult to create or edit", but reading your response, it seems to have been understood that way. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been summoned here. :-) Yes, for short lists and/or short list items, commas are fine; plainlist should be used for anything else. The <br/> solution shouldn't be used at all. Graham8709:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trojan Horse, left here, intended for thereOppose/delete infobox from this talk page. This infobox is a Trojan Horse. Until there’s consensus for it to be here on the talk page, I think it should be removed. I'm surprised this 'biobox' issue has been raised again, so soon after the rejected Bach infobox proposal. Definitely not helpful for the project, and discouraging for new/would-be editors. --Kleinzach05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus is required for an editor to post an example such as this on a talk page. Your continued attempts to stifle debate are symptomatic of someone whose arguments have no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the formal record (assuming I'm allowed to comment whilst cowering from the denunciations of some of the above), and support Kleinzach's proposal to delete box from this page. What on earth, anyway, is the use or point of having an infobox on a talk page as a permanent feature? Not that I wish to start such a discussion here - please take the whole topic away from the Wagner talk page and article.--Smerus (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reacting to some useful comments in the above about the CONTENT I collapsed a bit more. - As I find two boxes here too confusing I stored the other in my sandbox, if you want to compare, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a bit smaller, Gerda. Each of the infoboxes are in the page history, but I think I detect a preference among those commenting for the infobox to be as small as we can make it. We ought to be considering whether topics like "known for" are appropriate in a top-level summary, as they can be rather subjective and potentially unlimited. I mean, how do we decide what Wagner was best know for? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is, or seems meant to carry the weight of, a serious accusation. What has happened is tha an editor has advised relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, which is perfectly appropriate. Other editors are of course free to advise other projects if they feel so moved. Unless anyone is aware of anything that has been done which does not meet the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing, this impugnation should be withdrawn and removed from this page.--Smerus (talk) 08:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I am concerned with calling the discussion here "disruptive" and that was wrong, all that said, the solution to selective canvassing is, I suppose, more selective canvassing eleswhere. Eventually everyone gets notified. WP:CANVASS is usually used as a stick to prevent "the people on the other side" from notifying those who might care. Let's all drop this stick. Montanabw(talk)22:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing to, or participating in the section entitled 'Canvassing' (above). Unfortunately a message by me has twice been threaded into the discussion there against my wishes. [1][2] I hope this childish behaviour will stop. --Kleinzach22:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn
Same old topic, same old player. Though perhaps it a good thing in this case as a lot of people will check the take page on the FA day and see the mudslinging that keeps happening...but I'm too jaded to think anything positive will actually happen on this front... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I changed this back to the original No infobox. I don't know what you are supporting or opposing or yawning about. Infobox on talk was suggested, no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No infobox is short for no infobox in the article. I read about the infobox on the talk page as linked above. It was removed since, but Wikipedia never forgets, never forgives ;)
Speaking of discussing it, I've tidied up the infobox to make it shorter. I've changed the list styles for compactness and eliminated the link to the navigational template. Perhaps we can actually discuss whether that is an improvement? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably I've had to delete my own posting. [3] It was being repeatedly misplaced in the middle of the 'Canvassing' section above. [4][5]. I was not contributing to the 'Canvassing' section and I object to my posting being used to create the impression I was in the conversation when I was not. I assume this action was in reply to Smerus's demand that the ridiculous canvassing accusation be withdrawn. It's difficult to continue writing here if these tactics are used. --Kleinzach14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We only need to look at who has been doing the replacing....but I would not to wish to raise the profiles of certain editors, however tiresome and disruptive they may be, by calling in the Heavy Brigade........--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored it, per talk page guidelines, as it had been replied to. However, it was not moved - the redundant heading above it was deleted, also in accordance with such guidelines. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have again deleted my own posting. This was not replied to in the context in which it was placed. It was indented to form part of a thread that I was not participating in. I observe 1RR but this does not apply to deleting my own messages if they are abused. --Kleinzach22:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was replied to in the context in which you posted it; as a failed attempt to justify your canvassing. You frequently and arrogantly ride roughshod over such community norms: in this case alone: canvassing, deleting replied-to comments, posting new sections out of sequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox is there
If you "google" Richard Wagner, you get an infobox, some images, then:
Richard Wagner
composer
Wilhelm Richard Wagner was a German composer, theatre director, polemicist, and conductor primarily known for his operas.
Wikipedia
Born: May 22, 1813, Leipzig
Died: February 13, 1883, Venice
Compositions: Der Ring des Nibelungen, Parsifal, More
Movies: Parsifal
Spouse: Cosima Wagner (m. 1870–1883), Minna Planer (m. 1836–1866)
Children: Siegfried Wagner, Eva von Bülow, Isolde Ludowitz von Bülow
I confess that I would prefer something different, so put a suggestion at least on the talk page, if more is not possible. Try google for Bach and Carmen ;) - Like it or not: the infobox is there, - the question is if we design one or if we take what others do, mentioning a movie "Parsifal". (At least the link goes to the Syberberg film. I didn't provide the links above, look yourself.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me, who said "Wikipedia" above as the source for the first line. Wikipedia can't be taken as a source for the infobox for Wagner, because there is no infobox, nor will be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our conductor says that you have to repeat something 17 times to make it sink in. Here's #2: No, don't be afraid, I don't suggest to place an infobox in this article, a few days before it will be TFA, against the wish of the project and the article's main author. I only follow the advice Place infoboxes on article talk instead of article where their inclusion is disputed (per NYB). - I certainly didn't initiate "this" discussion, being interest in content, and (still, even after Bach) believing that an article talk should be about improving the article ;) - I thought the advice was a good idea and wanted to see what happened. I still think it's a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped (!) that the contribution of an infobox on the talk page, with respect for those who don't want it on the article page, would cause no dispute. I didn't expect it, given the previous discussions. I still think to have an infobox on a talk page when it is not wanted on the article page is a good idea, improving Wikipedia, worth pursuing and no waste of time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my talk, - I have to sing today, we still celebrate Pentecost. - Planyavsky was "my" article, I didn't start a discussion but added an infobox, my wish to have one was not respected, see history, and even after discussions that some might call a waste of time the one we have now is not as I want it. - I started Stoepel, Bach and Händel. I had predicted that Stoepel would have an infobox by 2020. He has one now, not by me. - I didn't start a discussion here, I just tried to make an infobox available for those readers who will miss it on Wednesday, because it's the normal thing to have. You know reactions to the "discussion" that followed (more appeared on my talk). I predict that Wagner will have an infobox by 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try also respecting the fact that someone has English as their fourth language, or is less careful when editing talk pages than articles. "I respect a person"—that's commendable. But what does it have to do with infoboxes in the next decade? Toccata quarta (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Austrian tenor Karl Beck became a master baker after his singing career, which included creating the title role in Wagner's opera Lohengrin, was cut short by a deterioration in his voice? (DYK 22 January 2013)
... that baritone Karl Hill, born 9 May 1831, sang the role of Alberich in the first performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle at Bayreuth in 1876, and created Klingsor in Parsifal?
... that Valery Gergiev, born 2 May 1953, director of the Mariinsky Theatre, initiated and conducted in 2003 the first complete cycle of Wagner's Ring staged in Russia for over 90 years?
... that Felix Draeseke, who died 26 February 1913, attended an early performance of Wagner's Lohengrin and composed the operas Herrat (1879) and Gudrun (1884, after the medieval epic)?
... that Fritz Reiner(pictured), born in Hungary on 19 December 1888, was preparing the MET's new production of Wagner's Götterdämmerung at the time of his death?
... that bass-baritoneHans Hotter(pictured), who died on 6 December 2003, was admired for the power, beauty, and intelligence of his singing, especially in Wagner operas.
... that Wagner's grandson Wieland Wagner (died 17 October 1966) is credited as an initiator of Regietheater, as a stage director and designer in Bayreuth?
I have restored a discussion last edited only two days ago, whose archiving was disputed.
I have also set up automatic archiving, so that such disputes should not occur in the future. A bot will now archive discussions that have been unedited for 14 days, removing any subjectivity from the process. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits09:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the automatic archiving. I am missing any discussion of the dispute mentioned by Mr. Mabbett, for evidence of which I have sought all over - no one contacted me about it until I received this billet doux after the event. But why be mean-spirited on such a celebratory day - I forgive Mr. Mabbett for his peremptory actions from the bottom of my heart!--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I even forgive Mr. Mabbett his sour repartee - is there no end to my magnanimity? Now I see that he means to say that the discussion was not on this page, which of course I had naturally assumed it was, being the standard polite norm for Wikipedia. But I will just mention, in case any strolling reader be inclined to take Mr. Mabett's comments as an unanswerable crushng rejoinder, that no one ever disputed this topic with me. I can't spend my life hunting around article history pages in case something has upset Mr. Mabbett - indeed I suspect that might be more than a lifetime's work. If he has something to say, let him say it outright to me, and my opinion of him might even rise higher! --Smerus (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of disturbing the peaceful, harmonious atmosphere here, can I point out that the bots do not archive chronologically (by last message). That's why I am opposed to using them. They also seldom keep to schedule. --Kleinzach12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But who can doubt that all involved in this conversation will gladly keep cooperative vigil together to ensure that the bot behaves? And if in the end we are dissatisfied we can always smile at each other and agree return to the traditional hand-made system to which, as far as I am aware, only one person has ever objected. --Smerus (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
