Jump to content

Talk:Conchita Wurst/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Name in/on infobox

I have reverted a change of the name in/on the infobox from Thomas Neuwirth to Conchita Wurst since the change hasn't been discussed before the edit. Personally I support keeping Thomas Neuwirth in/on the infobox, based on previous discussions here. Thomas.W talk 18:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W I don't see any "clear consensus" on this talk page about the infobox. Can you please point me to it? See my rationale for the change in the previous section. Also the consensus might be changing as you now have 3 editors questioning it. Can we also keep this under the "birth name" section as it's all related? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I would support the name at the top of the infobox being changed to "Conchita Wurst" as that is the name Tom is better known as, and the title of the article, then adding "Thomas Neuwirth" to the birth name section. That just makes much more sense to me than having Tom Neuwirth as the name at the top of the infobox as he isn't well known by that name and I'd assume only known like that to the Austrian public. As EvergreenFir has stated, artists like Beyoncé who have performed with both their birth name and a stage name, have the name they're better known as at the top of the infobox. In this case, Tom is better known as Conchita than his birth name. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a standard case, so it doesn't matter what it's like in other articles. As can be seen on his website Thomas Neuwirth makes a very clear distinction between his real self, Thomas Neuwirth, and his stage persona, Conchita Wurst, and so should we, by using Thomas Neuwirth in the infobox. Having Conchita Wurst in the infobox might also turn this article into a "transgender battlefield", as it was for a while just after the Eurovision final, with endless discussions about what personal pronomas should be used in the article; and we don't want to go through all of that again. As for previous discussions, having had Thomas Neuwirth in the infobox for quite a while now, with no changes and no discussions, is enough for it to require a clear consensus here to change it. Thomas.W talk 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we think of any other celebrities whose case is similar to this? I'm not interested in a protracted battleground discussion and it's pretty clear (to anyone paying attention) the transgender issue is a bit moot here. The only potential issue I can see to changing the infobox is that people would mistake Tom for a transgender person. Perhaps we put Conchita Wurst/Thomas Neuwirth as the infobox bold text? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
"If it works, don't fix it", so just leave it as it is. The fact that noone has tried to change it until now proves that the current name in the infobox works fine. Thomas.W talk 19:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think it does work. It looks very incongruent having Conchita Wurst as the title and then putting Thomas Neuwirth at the top of the info box. The result is confusing and only makes sense after reading the article to discover who the Thomas is. Moreover, the picture is not really a representative picture of Thomas, rather a picture of Thomas at a point in time made up as Conchita Wurst, so let's call it that. I would support a change to match the title of the page and delete the redundant second Conchita Wurst under the picture. Ex nihil (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why your edit summary said "revert to Conchita" since the top of the infobox has said Thomas Neuwirth for the past six months at least (this is what the article looked like on 21 November 2013). With no problems, and no serious objections as far as I know. So I see no reason to change it. Thomas.W talk 21:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thomas.W there's clearly a change in opinion. Let's discuss if it needs changing and if so how to change it instead of just saying "it's always been like this". EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree. A lot of things have changed since six months ago. Ex nihil (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The name on the infobox should reflect the title of the page. To me, this relates directly to the (stale, but not closed) RFC above regarding pronouns and page title. The article is about Thomas, who is known for his drag persona, Conchita. As such, I would agree with Drowninginlimbo and Wesley Mouse's suggestion that the page be moved to Thomas Neuwirth, and have the infobox agree with the page title. -- Irn (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Except that the article is not about Thomas but about Conchita. This is not a bio, however it may have started. It is about the extraordinary phenomenon of Conchita. Ex nihil (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The name in the infobox should be Conchita Wurst. This article is essentially about Conchita Wurst and not Thomas as a private person. Having his real name mentioned in birthname is appropriate though.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably Dame Edna Everage is ~the model to follow. Ex nihil (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Other examples have also been provided, such as David Hoyle, as well as Paul O'Grady/Lily Savage. This headache of a debate though doesn't seem to be showing signs of resolution any time soon. Irn noted the RfC above had gone stale, which is not quite true. The RfC is only 12 days old, and expires after one month (unless of course a consensus is finally reached). However, the participation level of that RfC appears to have dwindled down and/or neglected due to other debates that get raised. Perhaps if we concentrated on finalising that RfC, then maybe all the other issues will resolve themselves as we'd have a better idea of the direction we're heading towards. Wes Mᴥuse 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No it isn't. If he had been transgender, and had changed his real/legal name to Conchita Wurst then having Thomas Neuwirth as "birth name" would have been correct. But he hasn't, so it isn't. If the name at the top of the infobox says Conchita Wurst then Thomas Neuwirth must be listed as real name, not birth name, in the infobox (or even better, have the infobox say something along the lines of "Portrayed by: Thomas Neuwirth", similar to how it has been done in Dame Edna). Otherwise we'll have the same old discussion about personal pronouns again, and people will start adding [[Category:Transgender]] to the article again. Thomas.W talk 16:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Then let's use {{Infobox character}} and do that. No need to drag this out. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That should work, but then it'd mean going down the path that was suggested once before, about having 2 separate articles. One for Conchita and one for Tom. Seeing as that's how it has been handled in regards to Dame Edna Everage (portrayed by Barry Humphries). And I'm assuming that was also the way Lily Savage was handled, before it got merged into Paul O'Grady, which I assume was after O'Grady "retired" his Lily drag persona. Wes Mᴥuse 02:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse I changed the Infobox to Infobox character to see how it might travel. It seems to work well and it makes it clear that Conchita is not a real person but the creation of Tom N. There remains a problem of the circular link to Tom N but I am sure that will resolve in time. By all means revert it but lets leave it up a while for review. Any comments on the revised Infobox are very welcome. Ex nihil (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even though we are still trying to establish consensus on using it? Is that a wise move? I can see the move causing move havoc, then resolution. Especially as editors are still disputing that section. The move is also unethical. A character is portrayed by a living person. You've wikilinked Thomas Neuwirth's name, but it re-directs back to this very article, and thus going to cause severe confusion. It is like we're saying Thomas Neuwirth doesn't exist, and that Conchita Wurst (albeit a drag persona) is not a living creation. Wes Mᴥuse 15:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
A lot of article examples have been provided for us to find a more realistic approach. This current method will only cause more confusion to the "non-educational" readers. Making this purely for Conchita and redirecting Neuwirth removes the biographical side of the person who has created the living persona. It is disrespecting the persona's creator. I had suggested a while back on the possibility of having 2 articles, one for Wurst and one for Neuwirth. With logical hindsight, that would be the only way to resolve every issue that has been raised on this very talk page. By doing this, we're able to have an article for Wurst which covers the character persona, and entirely in female pronouns. Plus we're able to then use the {{Infobox character}} for the Wurst article. With that we then can link the "portrayed by" to an article for Thomas Neuwirth, which would be written entirely in the "male pronoun" and also maintaining the biography of a living person. It is clear that is how Wikipedia have handled drag persona's in the past. One only needs to check the examples to work that one out. Not exactly rocket science is it? Wes Mᴥuse 15:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Another option could be to have within this article, a section that covers Tom N. And then have the circular link for Tom N going to that section. So if a reader were to click on the "Tom N" link within the infbox, it would direct them straight to that part of the article. It would cover every aspect, keep the number of articles at a minimum, and still enable us to use both male and female context depending on which character's section we're writing about. Would that work? Wes Mᴥuse 15:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I like Wesley Mouse's last suggestion above. Either that or the final solution is a Character page for Conchita and a bio page for Thomas Neuwirth. The page is trying to be two things at once. At the moment there isn't really sufficient volume in there to split it very convincingly so a section inside would work well until it matured. In the short term the Biography heading might do better as a Character creation heading and a rewrite to lessen the confusion; I would be happy to start that off if there was some consensus. Ex nihil (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That gains my support. Wes Mᴥuse 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the new title headings. Although they could do with being shuffled around into chronological order. It's as if we're saying Conchita came before Thomas, when it was the other way around. How about listing them in the following order?
Lead - summarises the article (obviously).
Early life - covers Thomas Neuwirth pre-character creation. this section can also contain sub-section that house 2006–07: Starmania & Jetzt Anders!, which again was prior to Conchita Wurst being created.
Character creation - this would cover anything about Conchita Wurst, including the sub-sections for 2011–12: Die große Chance & Eurovision 2012 and 2013–14: Eurovision Song Contest 2014 of which Conchita Wurst was a part of (not Thomas Neuwirth). Wes Mᴥuse 15:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm a bit late to the party here, but I think that I should probably weigh in given that I have already pulled Divine (performer) up to GA status and have been the primary contributor on the pages for other similar individuals who transgress traditional gender binaries in some way, like Paul O'Grady, Genesis P-Orridge, Justin Vivian Bond, and David Hoyle (performance artist). Thus, I have had a lot of experience with this stuff at Wikipedia; that's not to brag, it's just to clarify my position and background on the issue. I am of the view that as with O'Grady's article, there is no point dividing the drag persona from the man behind her. Neuwirth simply hasn't done enough independently of Conchita to warrant a separate article. If in future he goes on to create other characters (as for instance Barry Humphries and Sacha Baron Cohen have done) then it might well be appropriate to create an article devoted solely to him, but until then, I don't think so. We should also take note that the distinction between Tom and Conchita is not a firm one; Conchita has appeared in public interviews to discuss Tom's life, and Tom's reasoning for creating Conchita. In that respect it is difficult to label Conchita purely as a "character". Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I must say, I seriously love what Midnightblueowl has done to the article. The transformation is out of this world. The layout flows easily. The content is by far a greater improvement. This method definitely gets undoubtedly and unchangeably, mega-support. WOW! I'm stunned - and it is not often I say that. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 00:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words of support User:Wesley Mouse; they are very much appreciated. Obviously this is a work in progress, but over many years here I've realised that Wikipedia articles only get improved with hard graft and hours sitting at the screen writing away - so that's precisely what I've tried to do! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I can wholeheartedly agree with your passion for writing articles to a high standard. Ever since I joined WikiProject Eurovision, I have strived for that same high quality and standard. The hard work and determination seems to be paying off, with a few layout suggestions on the annual Eurovision pages, resulted in GA's on the last 4 I worked on (ESC 2012, ESC 2013, ABU TV Song Festival 2012, and ABU Radio Song Festival 2012). I do love it when I meet other editors who share that same passion to create good quality. Wes Mᴥuse 00:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Following the changes by Minightblueowl, the article is now clearly a biography of Thomas N and not the character, Conchita Wurst. The page would now work if it was moved to Thomas Neuwirth. That is not a new idea of course, and I originally opposed it, but the page has evolved into an article about Thomas and needs to labelled that way. We would also need to revert my own change to the Infobox to tale out the Charcter template and replace with bio. After that we can then develop a separate page for the character Conchita if warranted, which I believe it is. As it stands at the moment there is little wrong with the page other than it is not primarily about its title, Conchita. Ex nihil (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Such action like that is going to require a technical move request, as Tom N's page is currently redirected. Perhaps initiating such discussions and see how people feel about the move might be a step forward? If we were to go for RM's, then leave a note on WikiProject Eurovision talk page for extra attention of participating editors. Would it also be worthwhile to close down the RfC I opened the other week, seeing as we've now made overall progress? Wes Mᴥuse 10:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your viewpoint Ex nihil, but it is Wikipedia policy to refer to the name with which the individual in question is best known (see Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names). In this case the commonly recognizable name is clearly Conchita Wurst. Thus this article should be known as Conchita Wurst, for now at least. Your argument is that Thomas Neuwirth and Conchita Wurst are two very distinct entities and thus require two separate articles; however, I respectfully disagree with your premise. Wurst is a persona of Neuwirth, but the two are intricately linked, with one often talking as the other. Thus, I believe that the article structure works fine as it is, even under the title of "Conchita Wurst". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's not enough just have a "character infobox", it seems that we need a infobox which explains where Thomas Neuwirth was born and officially who is he. It may be a solution split their articles also, can't we have an independent "character" article just for Conchita Wurst where we can explain her musical/television career independently from Tom? --Akinranbu (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An alternative here is: why can't we create a "Infobox: drag queen" for Wikipedia? There we can show the "occupation" of that drag queen, the official infos (such as birth place, names, nationality) of who she is portrayed by? --Akinranbu (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to refer to the conversations above that are covering your exact questions, of which some comments have already covered your points. Wes Mᴥuse 13:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Having two infoboxes on the same person is not good in my opinion. It looks strange and clutty.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I have combined the two infoboxes into one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I am new

I made a small change and only seen while loading that there is a box to add information about the change.

The old version stated that the radio station played the song on a loop for 48 hours - I was interested which radio station did this and read through the source where it stated this:

"It was Austria's first win since 1966. One local radio station celebrated by playing Rise Like a Phoenix on loop 48 times over four hours on Sunday."

I copy pasted "48 times over four hours" over "48 hours" or something.

--Sephtan (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephtan (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good call Sephtan! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

name

I am surprised that the artistic name is not discussed anywhere in the article. In Spanish "conchita" means "little concha" and "concha" is used as a diminutive for the female genitalia, same way in English is "pussy". And "Wurst" in German means "sausage". Such an "expressive" name has to be discussed somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nergaal That sounds like useful info. Do you have a reliable source that says that like a newspaper article or bio page on website?

Attitude Awards 2014

The BBC have published an article that Conchita has won "Moment of the Year" at the Attitude Awards 2014, the award presented by Nigella Lawson. I've never heard of these awards before - are they new? Are they a notable award ceremony? Is it worth a mention in the article? Should we now be looking into adding an "achievements" section, with a list of awards either nominated for or won? Wes Mouse 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conchita_Wurst/Archive_4&oldid=1146073547"