Jump to content

Talk:Richard Wagner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRichard Wagner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2013.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 24, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 24, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2010Good article nomineeListed
October 1, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
February 9, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

Cosima Wagner

[edit]

I noticed today only - sorry about that - that his wife Cosima Wagner 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 Bayreuth Festival, and keeper of his legacy. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a line after the mention of Bayreuth, since it really was her specific effort that made a difference. Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought that now that he has an infobox, she should also have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a matter for her talk page, and in full honesty, not a topic I have any interest in partaking – Aza24 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country of birth and death

[edit]

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)[reply]

The RFC was closed There is a consensus to include the proposed infobox and the proposal did not include countries. Thincat (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that a new matter may not be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does every change to the infobox need to be discussed just because it was added via RFC? @Helper201'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. Ligaturama (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closure specifically found consensus to add the proposed draft one, not whatever one anyone could think of. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that is what's in the closure message so it covers that point. Ligaturama (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Edward the Elder 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. Reader of Information (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

[edit]
Richard Wagner
Wagner in 1871
Wagner in 1871
Born(1813-05-22)22 May 1813
Leipzig
Died13 February 1883(1883-02-13) (aged 69)
Venice
Resting placeWahnfried, Bayreuth
Occupation
  • Composer
  • conductor
  • writer
Notable works
Spouse
Children
Signature

I propose the following improvements to the infobox to bring it more into line with other infoboxes on Wikipedia:

  • More representative photo of Wagner in his signature velvet suit and beret
  • Addition of resting place, occupations, period, spouses, children
  • Notable works (the Bayreuth canon)

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.

Wonder29 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 (Bayreuth canon). The article itself fails to highlight these works cleanly as such, therefore the infobox benefits the article.
Wonder29 (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Elizabeth Taylor. Wagner's family is especially of significant encyclopedia interest (many have their own articles), as his lineage remains relevant as maintainers of the annual Bayreuth festival, as well as for their notorious relations with Adolf Hitler during that era.
Wonder29 (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also prefer the current short one. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose AI images don't belong on Wikipedia (unless the article is about the AI image), especially in featured articles. They are inherently inaccurate. 2600:1700:2346:5B00:A8BC:D110:50A8:267E (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, updated with non-colorized photo. Wonder29 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 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)[reply]
Caption is awful (fails WP:CAPTION)
In what way?
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 Bayreuth canon
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, see Bayreuth festival
Period fails MOS:NOFORCELINK
No, it doesn't
Changing it from "Infobox person" to "Infobox writer": poor - why pigeon hold things even further than this reductive excrescence does already
Wagner was a writer as well as composer.
It appears to me that do not seem to have sufficient knowledge of Wagner to judge these matters. Wonder29 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Wagner&oldid=1257209023"