Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Parsifal on GA sweep list

Following the recent hoohah about the GA sweep review of the Dido and Aeneas artyicle, I decided to check what else might be coming up. I have noticed that Parsifal is one of the just over 200 articles remaining at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps_worklist. Although progress on sweeps is ratehr erratic, I think that the whole process will be completed this half-year, therefore we have to expect Parsifal to come up any time now and it is as well that we think of what may come up as an issue and try to deal with it pre-emptively.--Peter cohen (talk)

Parsifal is much more substantial than Dido so it may fare better, but it would be a good idea to polish it up. I particularly dislike the mini-synopsis in the lead — I don't know what other people think about this? It might also be an opportunity to complete the main biographies of the role creators. --Kleinzach 13:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad. The pictures need checking. I notice that the picture of Parsifal before the castkle of the grail has a deletion tag. There are no references in a couple of paragraphs. I suspect that some of the information about early performances was taken from Beckett who is referenced in the next paragraph. As far as the notable extracts are concerned, I do have the early years of Bayreuth 12CD box from Gebhardt. I'll check what excerpts are there. They also have a request in the booklet for copies of the handful of discs and cylinders they could not get hold of. I'll check whether any contain Parsifal excerpts. There are potted bios of all the featured singers in the box. I know that there are a couple featured from the first performance. One of them is Materna who we already cover, trhe other I have a feelign was someone like the second knight. There's a good chance that someone from the Met performance is included. I'll follow this up maybe next week. I'm in the middle of carrying out a GA assessment, am responding to FLC comments on Bayreuth canon and am trying to polish Blond Eckbert up for GA-nomination. One some of those are out of the way, I'll turn to this.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP

Incubation|incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth canon at FLC

Bayreuth canon is one of the current WP:Featured list candidates. WP:Wagner members are welcome to comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Now passed. My thanks to those who made suggestions.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Works by Richard Wagner put in Category: Works by artist

This category was put inappropriately in the visual artists category Category: Works by artist by Good Ol’factory and I removed it. It was again placed by this user, (see [[1]].

I understand that this user wants Wagner in the cat, because Category: Works by Prince (musician) and Category:Works by Madonna (entertainer) are there (presumably because of films and videos being considered as visual artworks). (No serious composers are in this cat.) I don't edit war so I am taking no further action now. --Kleinzach 07:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want Wagner in it because Prince and Madonna are in it. As I said above and as a brief perusal of the category structure will reveal, all categories for works by composers are within Category:Works by artist already, because Category:Compositions by composer is a subcategory of it. So yes, "serious composers" are in the category tree. In other words, it's not being treated as as purely "visual arts" category, as you've suggested. It currently contains the following types of works: sculpture, painting, films, architectural works, dances, musical compositions, and musical performances and recordings. The only time a category moves up a level to being a direct subcategory is when there is one called "Works by..." that contains musical works or other aristic works (such as paintings, sculpture, architecture, films, dances, etc.). That's the case with the Wagner category. It's not really anything to do with Wagner specifically—it's just the way the category system has been set up to work at this point. If there is another "Works by..." category created for a "serious composer", they too will of course be in the category. But that's only going to happen if there's a "serious composer" who also has categories for non-musical works they created, like books, essays, and the like. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The cat. is a mess because random articles have been added to it, but the core is the visual arts. Insisting repeatedly on adding one serious composer to it makes it even worse. --Kleinzach 08:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you overlooking the hundreds of articles and categories for musical artists that are within the category? I agree that it's disorganized right now, but it is not being used only for visual artists. That may be what you would prefer it to be used for, and it may be one solution, but that's not how it's being used. Anyone can see that by looking through what's in the category. Either way, the Wagner compositions will be in the category, since it goes Category:Works by artist → Category:Compositions by composer → Category:Compositions by Richard Wagner. Category:Compositions by composer contains 295 subcategories and 170 articles. Are all of them except Wagner non-"serious"? Or are you just unsure about the facts here? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see the underlying issues surrounding this problem were worked out at WPr Arts. Since I was involved in the dispute it would have been nice to have been notified so I could have participated, but at least we have something now that's better than what existed before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion at the Arts Project was about wider issues and the relevant projects were all informed. --Kleinzach 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. Just sayin' it would have been nice of you, since you knew I was involved here in a specific sub-issue that would be affected by any change. No obligations exist, and perhaps you didn't think of it. My main intent was to say good job on pursuing this and working it out, not to criticise you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Parsifal

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Parsifal/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Richard Wagner articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Theodor Uhlig

Ihave added the above article.--Smerus (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner at WP:GAN

I've nominated our core article for good article status. This is just one step towards User:Smerus's masterplan of getting it to featured article status. The two of us are building on other users' work, notably User:Dogbertd and User:Antandrus- or at least I am, Smerus is now the article's biggest contributor. When we go for FA, I'm intending to make it a joint nomination. If anyone there is a project member who has somehow managed not to contribute significantly to this article and feels able to carry out the GA review, then please do so. Once we've got through that hurdle, then people are welcome to contribute by making sugbgestions at Peer Review and then FA or you can contribute to the donkey work whould it prove that there is a lot to do.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Good Luck!--Dogbertd (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Flying Dutchman

Is there a reason why this, alone of W's operas, is listed under its English title for the main article? If it's on the grounds of common use, we don't have 'The Mastersingers','Tristan and Isolde' or 'The Ring Cycle'. So for consistency we should move it to 'Der fliegende Holländer' - shouldn't we? --Smerus (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't object to this. It does seem to be a strange quirk that this opera is usually referred to by its English title when most of the others are not. We should use the German for the title.--Dogbertd (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Way back when, there were discussions on article talk pages and at the Opera Project about WP:EN (Use English). The result was a guideline (WPO#Operas:_original_vs_English_translation) and a short list of operas with well-known English titles that aren't too similar to the original-language title (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/English_names). Hope this helps. Please raise this at the Opera Project talk page if you want to pursue the matter further. --GuillaumeTell 23:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted at Opera Project page as suggested.--Smerus (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner's first love

I came across this article today on new page patrol. I had tagged it as no context when I first saw it. The primary editor said something about he was being accused of ip conflicts at ANI (not sure of the context or why he mentioned it to me) and I didn't really want to open a can of worms by pushing the issue. I'm bringing this to your project because the article seems like it should be a footnote in a section about Wagner's personal life, not a stand-alone text. I think it's a very poor entry and would like you to take a look at it and make a more educated assessment. I'd support either a trim and merge or deletion if the article if the article proves to be in as bad shape as my instincts tell me. Thank you for taking a look, and if I'm way off base, I apologize for my lack of insight on the subject matter. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The primary editor is actually a she and the ip reference is to the Israel/Palestine conflict which is a content area that generates more than its fair share of Wikidrama. We've been mercifully free of such drama here. I think we leave it for the Wagner family themselves to have all the fun.

The article now has an afd against it. There is also a broader issue as to whether Leah David merits any mention in the main RW article or in the controversies article or anywhere else his anti-Semitism is discussed.--Peter cohen (talk)

I understand the I/P thing now. Lol, I'm used to being on vandal / new page patrol and I immediately think of IP addresses. I put the AFD for organizational issues I see with the article. After I placed the note here I found the discussion between yourself, the editor, and the opposing editor so I didn't see the harm in bringing it to AfD for a broader community discussion. Thanks for the attention to this and if you're aware of any other editors who should be involved in the discussion please let them know. I've exhausted my list of known participants and projects. Thanks again. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO this page should be deleted. Leah David is of interest only in so much as she provides evidence to support the notion that Wagner had no strong anti-semitic feelings in his youth. But she doesn't warrant an entry bigger than that for Dresden Amen for example. If the page is retained it needs at very least to be renamed (Leah David, rather than Wagner's First Love).--Dogbertd (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

The article is now GA-class - now for peer review? --Smerus (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Soon, but there are a couple of things I can think of that can be dealt with first:

• User:Tim riley raised a couple of points at Talk:Richard Wagner/GA1 which he let pass for now but we should consider.
• If we're goign to keep the same translation of Gesamtkunstwerk, we should get it into that article. Or we could pick one mentioned there already.
• I think we should have some musical examples.
• And a general pleas. Can someone with a copy of the cited edition of Magee's Aspects of Wagner check on what page the influence section starts. I inserted a page reference to the older printing that I have, but I think the page numbering changed different.

Apart from that, I'm writing a little article for a sociological site on my experience of political warring on Wikipedia, so I might be declared persona non grata.

And there is the issue of whether you want to be near your library for any substantial points raised. I have a few books, but nothing like as many as you. Of course, you can chase some things up after your return and can just delay FAC until then. Do any other editors want to help field issues at PR or make comments before we go there?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I see there are quite a few problems with Gesamtkunstwerk - not least of which is that the word is spelt with a lower-case initial throughout the article! I think we should also seek citations for the translations given.....--Smerus (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up Gesamtkunstwerk. In the process I note that Grove and the Oxford Companion translate as 'total work of art' so I have subsituted that translation in Richard Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Magee reference you mean is number 156 (Aspect of Wagner, 1988 version), then yes, the pages you have here are correct, pp.47 - 56. Congratulations on the GA status, BTW, terrific work!--Dogbertd (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Actually it was 154. I've now changed it from 71 to 47. This is assuming that there wasn't a change in text and therfore the mention is still at the start of the chapter.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I have a ludicrously large Wagner library. If you're in need of references for something, let me know and I may be able to help. Am working on improving Cosima Wagner at the moment.--Dogbertd (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Lorenz

It would be great if someone could create an article on Wagner scholar Alfred Lorenz (1869-1939).4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Not that I'm volunteering.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Richard Wagner articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see Houston Stewart Chamberlain in this list, as he can hardly be considered a topic of imortance - and is only indirectly a topic for Wagner - can/should we suggest it be removed, and if so how? --Smerus (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Click the "your Wikiproject's feedback" link four lines up from here on the right. --GuillaumeTell 10:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • thanks, done--Smerus (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Now we've given up one, I think we should get another added. Having only three Ring operas included is a bit silly. None or four makes sense. However, I think it is also worth revising all four articles with this release in mind. No information is included on the composition of the individual operas in the articles. Instead the reader is directed to the two composition of the Ring articles, neither of which are included. This is not how summary style is meant to work. We really should say that RW woorked on the text for each opera between X and Y and composed it between W and Z, mentioning in Siegfried's case that he turned to other projects and also mentioning in the case of the last two operas that they changed names prior to the composition stage.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • Okay, I've now produced the section Das_Rheingold#Composition_history based on the two composition articles and replacing the more general material about the development of the Ring as a whole. (I didn't realise that was there. The other three articles do lack any composition details.) Any thoughts and suggestions before I try to do something similar for the other three Ring operas? Proper referencing would be good but is lacking in the composition articles. However, for now, the priority is to supply the basic material in each article for inclusion in 0.8.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I've now produced the section for Walküre involving quite a lot of cutting and pasting from the composition articles as well as a bit of new text. Any comments before I move onto the other two would be appreciated.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I've never actually looked at these articles before :-}. Your additions of course improve them, but the articles themselves seem remarkably deficient - for one thing, DR has no inline citations and DW has very few. Moreover the synopsis in DW according to the note seems to be lifted wholesale from notes to a recording - can this be so? I don't alas have time or means to assist very uch in the overhaul they need. --Smerus (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
          • If you look at the assessment comments, you'll see that I was outvoted. I considered them Start class while GT and Kleinzach went for B. The disagreement was largely over whether you could count in value for what was mentioned in other articles. I think Siegfried is not included because it was rated C by WPO and the points algorithm for inclusion averages project assessments in some way.
          • Is there anyone else interested in working on upgrading the Ring articles? I've got somethign else I want to write this month. Alternatively would people support downgrading the four articles articles to Start or C so that they are not included in the build? I think we should do one or the other, but there would need to be consensus to go back on GT and K's assessments.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
            • I would support the removal of the individual Ring operas from the list, but I think the article Der Ring des Nibelungen should still be included. I'm surprised that Die Meistersinger von Nurnberg is not on the list. Re: the quality of the Ring operas, I'd agree that these are really only worth a Start or a C-rating. Some of them are - synopsis apart - very skimpy, and as has been pointed out, the synopsis for Walkure is a copyright violation. I'm working on other things at the moment notably Cosima Wagner. If Stewart Chamberlain can be included I would have thought that Minna and Cosima should be, too. When there's time I'd be happy to work on Siegfried, my favourite of the Ring operas.--Dogbertd (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I wd support downgrading the Ring operas to C at most. Is it worth putting up Wagner controversies as a candidate? Cosima ought to be there too - Dogbert's recent work surely justifies upgrading the article - --Smerus (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

On Cosima, I agree with you both. I'll go over and nominate and upgrade the assessment. I would support the controversies article bu I'll wait until there are more than two votes.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Now that three key members of the Wagner cabal have rubbished the articles on the Ring operas, I've downgraded them to Start. As far as the Mastersingers is concerned, I've looked and several issues from the assessment three years ago have been addressed. If the current version had been assessed, it would now have been a B. There is no clear statement I can see on how we or WPO differentiate C class from those on either side. I have decided therefore to ignore that category. I'm happy with the Mastersingers article being included in the release and unhappy with the Ring opera ones being included and that reflects the general opinion here. I'm off to change the comments at the build page.

Has someone checked the Valkyrie synopsis against the source? I'm not sure whether the source mentioned is a translation of the full text that is used as a source or one fo a synopsis that is plagiarised.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is - word for word - copied from the synopsis enclosed with the Solti CD Walkure - I've just checked my copy. It's a clear copyvio and will need to be deleted. As a short-term measure, could we insert the synopsis from the Encyclopedia Brittannica 1911 [[2]]?--Dogbertd (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking. I've traced the plagiarism to this edit and those following. I've cut and pasted the synopsis from the immediately preceding version which should fix the promlem. A couple of pictures will need reinstating, but not tonight. Meanwhile I'm off to the talk page of the editor who introduced the copyvio.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • OK, thanks a lot for your feedback, this is very helpful! I would have expected us to be including all four parts of the ring cycle (the bot doesn't know they are linked!), but it seems as if we'll have to wait for the next release for you to knock those into shape. At least we have Der Ring des Nibelungen. I agree with your suggestions of Cosima Wagner and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, these look to be an excellent choice. Regarding Houston Stewart Chamberlain, I think I'll leave him in; it's hard to remove an article that is of interest to several diverse WikiProjects, because one may say "that doesn't matter" while another may disagree strongly (though it's true that no one rates it as very important). Also, the stats are very clear and consistent, with a steady 4-5000 people a month reading the article even going back to 2008. There are articles on him in Latvian, Bulgarian, Farsi, Japanese and many more, suggesting a worldwide importance. So I think I'm going to play safe and leave that one in. Many thanks for your great feedback. Walkerma (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)