Talk:Richard Wagner

Cosima Wagner

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Helper201 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

That doesn't mean that a new matter may not be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair enough, that is what's in the closure message so it covers that point. Ligaturama (talk) 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 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)

Infobox changes

Richard Wagner
Wagner in 1871
Born	(1813-05-22)22 May 1813 Leipzig
Died	13 February 1883(1883-02-13) (aged 69) Venice
Resting place	Wahnfried, Bayreuth
Occupations	Composer conductor writer
Works	List of stage works List of music compositions List of prose works
Spouses	Minna Planer (1836–1866) Cosima Wagner (1870–1883)
Children	Isolde Eva Siegfried
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverting all change to the infobox back to the current one does not suggest that improvements could not exist? Wonder29 (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Also prefer the current short one. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Noted, updated with non-colorized photo. Wonder29 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support - I think the spouse and children should be added. Perhaps occupation, others I could take it or leave it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
• 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.
  1. caption = Wagner in (whatever year)
  2. image = (others can decide)
  3. resting-place = (no)
  4. period = (no)
  5. occupation = Composer · conductor · writer
  6. notableworks = List of compositions
  7. spouse = Minna Planer (1836–1866) · Cosima Wagner (1870–1883)
  8. children = Isolde · Eva · Siegfried
  9. signature = (don't care)

  --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Updated per suggestions Wonder29 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(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-hole things even further than this reductive excrescence does already. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not great. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 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, they still maintain the Bayreuth festival, and they formed the Bayreuth Circle. 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. Max Nordau accused him of graphomania. 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) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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 Psychological projection. 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. Wonder29 (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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. Wonder29 (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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. Wonder29 (talk) 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 MOS:IBP the article should remain complete with the infobox ignored. Nikkimaria (talk) 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. Wonder29 (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• 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 little support for the interpretation of MOS:NOFORCELINK 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. Nemov (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not great. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Wonder29 (talk) 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. Johnbod (talk) 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. :) Wonder29 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "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. - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) I don't find it civil to shut down IB discussions because "I don't like them". Wonder29 (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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. Wonder29 (talk) 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. - SchroCat (talk) 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". Wonder29 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Update Per discussion, list of "notable works" has been removed and replaced with links to his stage works, compositions, and prose works. Wonder29 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes - Wikipedia's rules are clear: 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. Tim riley talk 20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

    I do not see how links (which are standard on infoboxes all over Wikipedia) 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 Wikipedia articles, which is absurd. Wonder29 (talk) 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. -- Ssilvers (talk) 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 light opera, if you want to swim in the deep end with us Wagnerians, be prepared to explain yourself fully.

  Wonder29 (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)