| Revision as of 14:14, 17 May 2013 editSmerus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers51,056 edits →No infobox: ...← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:34, 15 November 2024 edit undoWonder29 (talk | contribs)457 edits →Infobox changes |
| (658 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__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== No infobox == |
|
== Cosima Wagner == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:: 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 == |
|
|
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) |
|
|
: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) |
|
|
:: That doesn't mean that a new matter may not be discussed. --] (]) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
::::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== |
|
{{Infobox person |
|
{{Infobox person |
|
| name = Richard Wagner |
|
| name = Richard Wagner |
|
| image = RichardWagner.jpg |
|
| image = Wagner.png |
|
|
| image_size = 275 |
|
| caption = Richard Wagner, 1871 |
|
|
| alt = Portrait of Richard Wagner, 1871 |
|
| caption = Wagner in 1871 |
|
|
| birth_place = ] |
|
| birth_date = {{birth date|1813|5|22|df=y}} |
|
|
|
| birth_date = {{birth date|1813|05|22|df=y}} |
|
| birth_place = ] |
|
|
| death_date = {{death date and age|1883|2|23|1813|5|22|df=y}} |
|
| death_date = {{death date and age|1883|02|13|1813|05|22|df=y}} |
|
| death_place = ] |
|
| death_place = ] |
|
|
| resting_place = ], ] |
|
| occupation = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
|
| occupation = {{hlist|Composer|conductor|writer}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| works = {{ubl|]|]||]}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| spouse = {{unbulleted list|] (1836{{endash}}1866)|] (1870{{endash}}1883)}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| children = {{hlist|]|]|]}} |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
| signature=Richard Wagner Signature.svg |
|
|
| signature_size=175 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Collapsible list|title=years active |1= |
|
|
{{plain list|1= |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1833}}|end_date={{End date|1834}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1834}}|end_date={{End date|1836}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1836}}|end_date={{End date|1837}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1837}}|end_date={{End date|1839}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1839}}|end_date={{End date|1842}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1842}}|end_date={{End date|1849}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1849}}|end_date={{End date|1858}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1858}}|end_date={{End date|1862}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1862}}|end_date={{End date|1864}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1864}}|end_date={{End date|1865}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1865}}|end_date={{End date|1871}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1871}}|end_date={{End date|1882}}|location=]}} |
|
|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1882}}|end_date={{End date|1883}}|location=]}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| known_for = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] as "]" |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] polemic |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| style = ] |
|
|
| notable_works = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* {{Start date|1840}} '']'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1841}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1844}} '']'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1848}} '']'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1853}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1854}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1856}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1857}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1862}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1868}} ''{{lang|de|]}}'' |
|
|
* {{Start date|1876}} '']'' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| spouse = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* ] (1836–1866) |
|
|
* ] (1870–1783) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| children = {{Plainlist | |
|
|
* Isolde Wagner |
|
|
* Eva Wagner |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| signature = Richard Wagner Signature.svg |
|
|
| module = ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
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 , --] (]) 19:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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. --] (]) 19:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I heard "bad faith" before. ] who gave this advice, quoting ], 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, --] (]) 19:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: 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. --] (]) 20:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: What an interesting comment! I am delighted that ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, ] is adopting precisely the ] arguments he purports to deplore, which perhaps puts his valuable contribution in context. Not, of course, that I am accusing him of bad faith.--] (]) 10:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::He didn't call you 'mean-spirited', nor a 'smear'er. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: 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 ] able to defend himself?--] (]) 14:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Smerus, that "ugly column" snark was completely out of line! Per ]: "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 <nowiki>{{infobox person}}</nowiki> 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::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. ] (]) 21:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::And look what the freakin' thing has done to the layout of the talk page! ] (]) 21:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Believe me or not: I don't drum, I am a singer, - I fixed the layout that has to do with observation, not with a template, --] (]) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Support''' the use of an infobox, like that proposed here, as useful to our readers and helpful in emitting metadata. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*As much as I mostly love infoboxes in any other article about some composers, I am unfortunately going to '''oppose''' it per ]. Also, the use of an infobox for composers like these are mostly contrary to the strategic goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. ] (] - ]) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: As you're obviously fond of ALLCAPLINKS, I'm going to suggest you read ] which says: {{tq|"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 ] cannot decide that some generally accepted ] does not apply to articles within its scope."}} (and LOCALCON is a '''policy''', btw). The community consensus is documented at ] (yes, it's part of the Manual of Style): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the following improvements to the infobox to bring it more into line with other infoboxes on Misplaced Pages: |
|
:: {{tq|"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? --] (]) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Actually, I read ] and I understand where you're coming from. So far, the infobox topic has been divided here. If there is a ] 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. ] (] - ]) 03:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
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. ] (]) 02:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: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 ]? Lastly, on the way the coding of infoboxes has gone recently: the proliferation of specialised templates like {{Tl|Plainlist}}, {{Tl|Collapsible list}}, {{Tl|Timeline-event}} makes infoxes certainly less accessible and editable to the average editor. -- ] (]) 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: @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 {{u|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 {{tag|br|s}} 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: {{tq|"... 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. --] (]) 04:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. -- ] (]) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I've been ] here. :-) Yes, for short lists and/or short list items, commas are fine; plainlist should be used for anything else. The <nowiki><br/></nowiki> solution shouldn't be used at all. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' as a visually ugly duplicate of the lead and per other reasons listed at ]. ] (]) 03:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Oppose''' as redundant, awkward, confusing, uninformative. PS: The works of the ''Ring'' cycle are normally listed together. -- ] (]) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*], intended for ''']''' '']]'''Oppose/delete infobox from this talk page'''. This infobox is a ''']'''. 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 ]'''. ''Definitely not helpful for the project, and discouraging for new/would-be editors.'' --'']]'' 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
** 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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''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.--] (]) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
** It's not a ''permanent'' feature; it can be archived with the rest of the discussion; ''after'' discussion has ended. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* More representative photo of Wagner in his signature velvet suit and beret |
|
=== Canvassing === |
|
|
|
* Addition of resting place, occupations, period, spouses, children |
|
|
* Notable works (the ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
Note {{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music|555436138|555347678|this canvassing}} ({{Diff|Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers|555437100|555402601|and this pointer to it}}); it appears that other interested projects have not (yet) been notified. The comment cited also makes accusations of disruption. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: 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 ], this impugnation should be withdrawn and removed from this page.--] (]) 08:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::A cursory read of ] will show that the guidelines there were breached. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, and you've selectively notified ''some'' of them, in a partisan manner. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
===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... ] (]) 04:17, 17 May 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) |
|
===Misunderstanding=== |
|
|
|
::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 (]). 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. |
|
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, --] (]) 07:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::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) |
|
: This calls for a new caplink, ].--] (]) 08:10, 17 May 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) |
|
::''"No infobox"''? So why is the box still here? Does ] agree that it should be removed? --'']]'' 09:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Also prefer the current short one. ] (]) 01:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::No infobox is short for no infobox in the article. I read about the infobox on the talk page as linked above. It since, but Misplaced Pages never forgets, never forgives ;) |
|
|
|
:'''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) |
|
:::I have a love-hate-relationship with Wagner, see: |
|
|
|
::Noted, updated with non-colorized photo. ] (]) 05:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::* 19 January 2013 ], thanks to Smerus for acting on many comments! |
|
|
|
*'''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) |
|
:::* 20 January 2013 |
|
|
|
*'''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. |
|
:::I will improve this infobox, but am travelling right now. --] (]) 11:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*# caption = Wagner in (whatever year) |
|
::::I don't understand. If the infobox already exists in your sandbox, why copy it here? --'']]'' 12:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*# image = (others can decide) |
|
:::::So that we can discuss it - oh look, we are. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*# 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