Talk:Das Labyrinth

Title
Shouldn't this article be named Das Labyrinth, as the German Wikipedia has it (de:Das Labyrinth)? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the name change to the original German title. On the other hand, I do not agree with the Start class rating; I quote from WikiProject Opera/Assessment: "Start-Class articles on operas must contain a table of roles with associated voice types (though not necessarily with names of original performers) and a basic plot synopsis that is a minimum of a paragraph in length". Best regards. 81.83.137.88 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Class changed to "stub". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Titel des Werks
S. g. Herr Bednarek,

der Artikel heißt in der deutschen Wikipedia hauptsächlich wegen des Gleichklangs von Goethes Werk "Das Labyrinth".

Die Editoren des Textbuches (Tutzing 1992, sie folgen den historischen Quellen) haben sich für die damals meistens verwendete Titelform entschieden, die zur Erkennbarkeit und wegen des Reklame-Effekts gleich anfangs klarmacht, worum es hier geht: leider ist das auch nicht ganz einheitlich in den historischen Quellen von Libretto und Musik durchgeführt:

A. Pyro später: T. Mollo: Der Zweyte Theil Der Zauberflöte

N. Simrock: Der Zauberflœte zweyter Theil

Libretto-Erstdruck (Wien 1798): Gesänge aus dem zweyten Theil der Zauberflöte

Der Historiker Leopold Sonnleither schreibt 1862 wiederum:

Der Zauberflöte zweiter Theil

Es ist aus verschiedenen Gründen also sinnvoll, das Werk im englischen Artikel über den anfangs mit Mozarts Werk identen Titel einzuführen. Alle relevanten Informationen kommen dann ja im Anschluss durchaus noch! Also möge man es so stehenlassen wie es hier steht, selbst wenn es im Titel abzuweichen scheint.

85.127.108.243 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia. Please try to communicate in English.
 * Thank you for the list of roles; could you also add their voice types, and possibly the premiere cast and conductor?
 * To the title: I read the German article which names the work "Das Labyrinth oder Der Kampf mit den Elementen. Der Zauberflöte zweyter Theil (auch: Zweiter Teil der Zauberflöte)". Following established titling practice (see Don Giovanni or Gisela! for the omission of subtitles; see Croesus for the simplification for verbose titles), this should be Das Labyrinth (unless there is clear evidence of an English title used in English-speaking countries, which I doubt). There is no reason to use archaic spellings ("zweyte(r) Theil"). Further, the link given in the German article uses the same title as the German Wikipedia, and even the long title used in Tutzing 1992, "Der Zauberfloete zweyter Theil unter dem Titel : Das Labyrinth oder der Kampf mit den Elementen" (my emphasis) suggests "Das Labyrinth". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don’t change!
Hallo,

you told that you are of german origin, so I thought I should write in german.

Please put in

The Magic Flute

and you will see a lot of titles with that beginning!


 * 1975
 * 2006
 * Ballet
 * Musical
 * Film
 * discographie
 * disambiguation


 * and The Magic Flute Second Part

I think you will agree: Schikaneder would prefer that!

That effect is not possible in german, because of the beginning with: Die/Der

Perhaps the main german title should be changed! That would be the best!

"Il dissoluto punito" or "Der bestrafte Wüstling" > Don Giovanni and the Henze-Opera are completely other cases: There is no imagination intended to a very famous Work to which it is the sequel!

Hope you will not change it !!!

But feel free to change the main-title in the german Wiki:

'''Der Zauberflöte zweyter Theil. Das Labyrinth.'''

and than the correct version

Der Zauberflöte zweyter Theil unter dem Titel Das Labyrinth oder der Kampf mit den Elementen.

When I put the first version in german WIKI:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Das_Labyrinth&oldid=28833194

there was an existing article on the Goethe-Fragment: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Der_Zauberflöte_zweyter_Theil&oldid=17163680

Best regards,

85.127.108.243 (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Language: This page is for discussions of the article by all editors, so English should be used.
 * Title: There are several guidelines on how articles about operas should be titled; see Article titles, WikiProject Opera, Naming conventions (operas). Following those guidelines, I still think the most appropriate title is "Das Labyrinth"; see also Peter Winter's list of works. English literature, including Abert/Corneilson (and others) in Grove, also uses "Das Labyrinth". The New Grove Dictionary of Opera has an article on this work, titled "Labyrinth, Das": Linda Tyler. "Labyrinth, Das."
 * The current title "The Magic Flute Second Part" is a bit ungrammatical (it either lacks an apostrophe or a dash) and it gives rise to confusion with Goethe's work, de:Der Zauberflöte zweyter Theil. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding an apostrophe
The recent move of this article to The Magic Flute’s Second Part is unsupported by any evidence of its usage. The use of the typographic (curly) apostrophe is inconsistent with WP:APOSTROPHE and WP:TITLE. I again suggest that the title of this work should be Das Labyrinth; this is the title used in Grove which is the standard work of reference – see WikiProject Opera and Naming conventions (operas). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing pictures without consent
I do not consent with the changes made by Michael Bednarek. First of all I want to know: Why? Because of your personal taste? Or just because you are a man on mission? Undoing everything I do when illustrate operas - Carmen, Ariadne, L'Africaine, Salome, Die Soldaten and some others … in German WP as all as here. (You behave like the contrary of a "Schutzengel"! If you will continue to do so, I will list all your destructive acts and send them to the administrators). I kindly ask you to redo your undoing. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (You misspelled "consensus". If you truly meant "consent", please read WP:OWN.) You mean on 28 November 2013, 9 months ago? As I wrote in my edit summary, I moved the image further down and used the recommended size because your edit created a truly horrible layout. It also linked the name of the singer to a Russian athlete. I have no "mission" regarding your edits, only to improve Wikipedia articles in line with established Wikipedia practices, guidelines, and policies. I will not revert my edit after it has stood for 9 months and been viewed by more that 2000 people. The adminstrator's noticeboard is that-a-way. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)