Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:06, 19 July 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Richard Wagner 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing and referencing

I've added a synopsis and various other information. I've tried to indicate what source provided what information. Are other people able to supply sources for information added earlier? --Peter cohen 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Working towards Good Article candidacy.

I think that this article is not far off being suitable for nomination.

These are the things that I think need to be done first:

• Move up and format the recordings accoridng to WP:WPO standards.
• Source a couple of facts: the history of the manuscript passing through Ludwig's and Hitler's hands and being destroyed being the most obvious. Also need full citation details (author, pages) for the Sawallisch box info.
• Illustrations: I'm thinking particularly of musical ones. Is anyone here experienced in handling sound files and doing so in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies. However, if anyone has a text which has the illustration at and can indicate its date, we might be able to include that in the synopsis.
• Should state that it's not part of the Bayreuth canon and find a source.
• Rework Sources section into references and links ones.
• Confirm what Grove etc have to say.

Anyone able to help with any of these?--Peter cohen 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial infobox

I see there was an attempt to put a controversial infobox on this article without any prior proposal. I think that was unfortunate. Personally, I am opposed to using that box. --Kleinzach 01:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I see "trying" an infobox, following discussions on project opera culminating in "My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so." (not by me) - There are hundreds of opera articles, several of them with a footer navbox available: I will not "propose" every single time that I replace redundant information by information about the specific article. A centralized discussion about the alternative is open. - Please be careful using "controversial", I prefer: perfectly acceptable to do so or not to do so. Back to the article: what's wrong with this specific infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "redundant information"? --Kleinzach 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Redundant" - if I really have to explain it once more - means that IF a footer navbox is available (as for Wagner), navigation in a sidebar is redundant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "controversial infobox", without reference to your own personal dislike for it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the infobox. Furthermore, the editor who removed it used an edit summary of "restore Template:Wagner operas until there is consensus for this change", but appears to have made no attempt here to determine consensus, or explain his objection. WP:DNRNC applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this infobox. No consensus was sought when installing it. I shall be referring to this intervention by Gerda and Mr. Mabbett presnetly in the ongoing arb disucssion on infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for you to bring this to the arb case, I did it. The opposition of some users to opera infoboxes, part of the manual of style of project opera, is the central part of my statement. It is a bit surprising that people who urge respect for a restriction of a project (no infoboxes for composers) don't respect this option of a project. Repeating: no "consensus" is needed to follow a project guideline. I oppose the term "controversial" in the section header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As a reader I expect an infobox about *this* opera not a picture of Wagner with a hidden list of other operas. Agathoclea (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Richard Wagner articles
• WikiProject Richard Wagner articles
• B-Class Opera articles
• WikiProject Opera articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles