Talk:List of films using the music of Richard Wagner

This page was proposed for deletion by Why? I Ask (talk · contribs) on 3 September 2022.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Richard Wagner (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Richard Wagner, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Richard WagnerWikipedia:WikiProject Richard WagnerTemplate:WikiProject Richard WagnerRichard Wagner articles

IMDB[edit]

I hate to tell you, Smerus, but you're probably going to get dinged for using IMDB as a source since, because it is user-generated, it is disputed whether it is a reliable source here on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Disputed uses. Also, since there are well over 1,000 films which use the music of Richard Wagner, how is this wiki article (which currently has less than 20 entries) going to be in any way remotely comprehensive or objective? Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I have to agree. As I suggested on Talk:Richard Wagner the other day, this page should probably moved to something like Wagner and cinema, and made into prose. That'll likely involve much time and work, though I may be able to help. --Gertanis (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, though I believe we will be able to find other sources. As to length....the solution will eventually lay I think in Gertanis's proposal above....although by excluding Ride of the Valkyrie and the Bridal Chorus, we could be able to get the total to the low hundreds :-) .......So this whole thing is maybe just an interim solution.....Smerus (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now explicitly excluded the Bridal Chorus and trivial examples (see article lead). On this basis I think the article is viable.Smerus (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed by novice[edit]

Sub-citation a much better idea. Thank you to Smerus for this elegant solution.

I'm not sure how to suppress the initial articles for sorting. Can someone help with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes der Taucher (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the meaning of your enquiry. Please edit the data you are entering properly, as your present editing means that the sorting does not work correctly. The format for each entry should be as follows (example )

|-

| scope="row" data-sort-value=Foreign Affair|[[A Foreign Affair]]

| data-sort-value=1948|1948

| data-sort-value="Wilder, Billy" | [[Billy Wilder]]

| data-sort-value="Lohengrin"|[[Lohengrin]] | <ref> Ross (2020) p. 590.</ref>

Please correct the entries you have already made. Please note that, as in the article lead, casual references (and use of the Bridal Chorus from Lohengrin) should not be included.Thanks - --Smerus (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- will try that, in non-visual "edit source" mode, using template, to get the sort mechanism to skip over non-filing characters like the English articles "a" or "the". (Curious Case of Benjamin Button is most recalcitrant.) Johannes der Taucher (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PROD proposal[edit]

An editor proposed a PROD with the justification "An overly specific list that fails to provide any useful encyclopedic content. "Ride of the Valkyries" alone has appeared in at least a hundred films." I temoved the PROD on the bases that: 1) Casual references (eg of the Ride of the Valkyries) are specifically excluded in the lead 2) I fail to understand what is meant by 'overly specific' as a criticism (in effect that's an endorsement of its accurcacy), or to comprehend which WP guidelines would give this as a rationale for deletion 3) The viewing figures average 56/day, which answers any criticism based on 'usefulness'. All the entries on the list are provided with an appropriate citation and imo the article comfortably meets WP standards.

Smerus (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any definition of a "casual reference" for this article? Sure, I get the Bridal Chorus being excluded, but what makes one use of a popular Wagner piece different from another? Accuracy for a list like this means little (nor is IMBd a reliable source for most of it); I need something that indicates notability that justifies the use of listing this rather than discussing about how he was used (an encyclopedic overview of Wagner's influence on film would be a wonderful addition to the project). And views and perceived usefulness are not helpful indicators of what makes encyclopedic content. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List organization[edit]

The list of films in this article is not sorted in a useful or logical order. Films should either be alphabetized by title, or listed chronologically in the order of their date of release. I am open to whatever suggestions other editors might have. Msoul13 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's a sortable list. It can be in whatever order you want. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but is it possible for the page to default to a specific order? Msoul13 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reorganized the table by date. Οἶδα (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]