Talk:Das Liebesverbot

Infobox/template
As at Goetterdaemmerung, I am reverting to the previous template the infobox here, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article. As that wasn't undertaken, it can be carried out now on the talk page, here, and I an notifying the projects concerned.--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in simple terms why an infobox relating to the work in question is replaced with a generic pciture of Wagner, which apart from the fact that he wrote the piece has nothing to do with the details of the work in question? Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody has to ask projects or other editors for permission to edit articles. That's ownership. If you don't have any good reason why an infobox should not be added to this article, then please cease your disruptive reverting - another clear manifestation of ownership issues. I've reverted your damaging edit. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What is it with these opera nav boxes in the top? Navboxes should be at the bottom. Infoboxes at the top as a nice summary of the article. I agree with Rexx here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see the guys from the sogennante WikiProject Quality Article Improvement coming out to hammer home their objectives. I won't re-revert, of course, but I still await any justification for the infobox. A reasoned discussion, as opposed to just preferring a picture, would be nice.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored the long-standing Composer navbox, which is used consistently for all of Wagner's operas. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree; can we then remove the largely redundant template Richard Wagner? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no connection with QAI, so I refute that particular lie, but I will explain to you that the infobox provides a quickly accessible overview of key facts in the article. It not only provides facts for any reader wanting that brief overview, but it also provides microformats that make the information available for reusers in a standard way, such as "vevent" and "dtstart". In addition, the standardised layout of label-data pairs enables researchers to extract that data from the article far more accurately. By making the information available to broader audiences without predetermining who should be reading or using our content, we improve the article. Readers expect this sort of information to be available, rather than a hidden list of navigation links, which have no place at the top of an article. The argument for consistency with other operas is merely an argument for consistent mediocrity - any and all of those opera articles would be improved by the addition of a well-crafted infobox. Now, please either engage with the arguments presented and quit the ad hominems or revert the damage you've done to this article. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, in summary, it offers no advantages. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, they have a number of helpful features, as has been debated ad infinitum, ad nauseaum across dozens of article pages. You don't have to agree that they are "advantages" in your view, but they certainly are better than a random image or, worst of all, a navbox at the top that leads people away from the article.  Infoboxes are standard in dozens of wikiprojects and exist on over half of all wikipedia articles.  As infoboxes are neither mandated nor disallowed, they are determined by consensus on each individual article.  Just because the old guard at the WP classical music projects don't like them and will never change their views on that matter does not make WP:IDONTLIKEIT one of the five pillars.   Montanabw (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis
The synopsis section of this article was a very lengthy verbatim quote (and unattributed) from Wagner's 'Mein Leben' in the Ellis translation, and thus not acceptable as content for a Wikipedia article. I have therefore deleted it and it therefore needs to be rewritten.--Smerus (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you suppose this could be replaced with an Infobox? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is from 10 August 2005 more acceptable? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The early version mentioned by Michael Bednarek is noted to be taken from Kobbe. As I don't have Kobbe I can't tell how literal it is - is it a transcript or a rewrite?--Smerus (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The synopsis by Wagner that I just added is rather long, like his operas. I doubt Wagner would have been very happy with the constraints of an Infobox. (Of course, excerpts can be very popular. Didn't there used to be something called the "best square inches of art"? After all, why waste your time looking at the whole picture.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
The critical point in the infobox discussion seems to be how to determine a consensus on a given article. Lets take this as an example, look at the merits and flaws of the present side navbox (in the position of an infobox, and duplicating information from the footer navbox Richard Wagner) and a suggested infobox (infobox opera, made available by project opera in June). Let's collect opinions and views, and practise consensus: how would it be determined and by whom.

Side navbox
Merits:

Flaws:
 * 1) It is in the position where readers are used to see an infobox.
 * 2) It's the same for all stage works by Wagner.
 * 3) It highlights in title and image a person, not a composition.
 * 4) Readers not used to collapsed content don't realise that it is a navbox.
 * 5) It navigates away from the article. Gerda Arendt (talk)


 * 1) Cannot be customized for each article
 * 2) Provides no information useful to the article itself
 * 3) New users don't understand collapsed boxes in general, just think it's a picture
 * 4) A change to the template instantly affects all articles, no individual customization possible
 * 5) Confused with an infobox Montanabw (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Merits:
 * 1) It provides information on the article subject.
 * 2) It shows the composer around the time when he wrote the opera, and could show an image more related to the opera if we had one.
 * 3) It provides key facts, such as time and location, at a glance and in granular form.
 * 4) It emits metadata.
 * 5) It has a clear design. Gerda Arendt (talk)
 * 6) Customizable to individual articles
 * 7) Can be collapsed, though I personally think that feature is seldom needed
 * 8) Content determined by individual article consensus by editors
 * 9) Other genres of music and literature, as well as many biographies, use infoboxes, they are expected Montanabw (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Flaws:

Consensus:

With my known bias, "consensus" would lean heavily toward the infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Montanabw (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Side navbox

 * Merits
 * 1) It is in the position where readers are used to see an opera navbox. And indeed they are more used to seeing these for operas than they are used to seeing infoboxes.
 * 2) Does not fruitlessly duplicate information immediately to its left
 * 3) It has a clear design.
 * 4) Neat, does not takeup excessive space
 * 5) By the absence of additonal information, does not lead to debate as to what should be in and what should be out; also prevents addition of irrelevant materials.


 * Flaws
 * 1) It's the same for all stage works by Wagner. But this can be remedied - see for example the tryout I have done for Robert le diable, and which I eventually hope to extend to other Meyerbeer operas. I would be in favour of extending this to Wagner operas.

Infobox

 * Merits
 * 1) None imo.


 * Flaws
 * 1) Readers are not used to seeing infoboxes on opera articles, therefore will not expect to find one.
 * 2) Clumsy, takes up much space
 * 3) Repeats information immediately to its left
 * 4) Because of the above, impairs quality of article
 * 5) Amount and nature of information to be included will always be debatable and lead to ultimately fruitless discussion which will not improve article but will distract time and effort of editors.
 * 6) Subject to alteration to include irrelevant information, therefore requires onoging monitoring by interested editors.
 * 7) Metadata argument irrelevant to quality of article.

Conclusion
Against infobox, but in favour of improving navbox with illustration relevant to the opera.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If Gerda thinks that the critical point of the current Arbcom case is how to determine consensus, I suppose voicing of concerns is called for. In short: I share Smerus'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The side navbox is a terrible idea, totally useless and confusing. Almost better to have nothing at all.  IF we are voting here, I must say the side navbox is a poor precedent to set.  Montanabw (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
(ec, and I don't think of an arbcom case I didn't want, nor of "battle", I think of a different reader.) Thank you for your (supported) view, now let's get to this article. I have a reader in mind who comes across this article by chance and may not know that Richard Wagner is a composer. The side navbox, titled "Richard Wagner", suggests that this is an article about the pictured person, whereas the infobox would tell him that it is about something by a person. "My" reader reads many more other articles than opera, so sees many more infoboxes than side navboxes. The space is not very different for the two, and on my small monitor both fill white space next to the TOC. The infobox has to be redundant by definition, or it would be incorrect, but like on a title page of a book (also "redundant" to the content), the important name of the composer shows prominently right next to the title of the piece, whereas in the lead you have to go past work number, translation, genre and number of acts to reach it. I like to give "my" reader a feeling about place and time at a glance. The lead takes longer to get there. Can you tell me parameters that are questionable in this particular article? The side navbox adds nothing to the article that is not available in the footer navbox, so if the infobox adds only a tiny bit for a few readers, it's better. Greetings from pleading Abraham ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbcom case may settle part of this matter, but as I am not an expert on operas or Wagner, I do want to see a short summary of information right up front (just as I want a short summary of information about minerals, plants, animals, other biographies of people, etc. Then, if intrigued, I read the lead.  Then, if the lead is interesting I will use the TOC to at least skim the things that caught my interest in the preliminary material.  A navbox gives me none of this, just a way to leave the article and go read something else.  These tools are not for the experts, who would read a wall of text, it is precisely for the reader of an encyclopedia, looking for new information.  Montanabw (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Template:Composer navbox has been developed and refined over quite a long period of time (preceded by, and an improvement over Template:Infobox operas), has been used extensively for operas, and has clearly found wide acceptance among the editors who work on these articles (although not unanimously, obviously). The composer of an opera is probably the most important piece of information to be known about an opera, in many cases even more important than the specific title of the opera itself. The lead is (after the title) probably the most important element in any article, not an infobox, and the lead almost invariably tells the reader the name of the composer of an opera in the first sentence. It seems pretty unlikely to me that any reader will think that because the composer's portrait happens to be the first image displayed, that the article is only about the composer, since the title of the article is not his name. The supposition that readers will erroneously interpret the portrait of the composer seems terribly far fetched to me. However, there do appear to be quite a few editors, not particularly interested in opera, but having a particular fascination with infoboxes, who seem to be determined to impose these infoboxes on editors who are interested in working on operas. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Could it be that other editors have been driven off either directly or indirectly if they come to this subject and find that the usual framework of articles they are used to from the rest of the wiki does not apply?
 * My point to the above discussion is that the side nav box is an unneeded duplication. Agathoclea (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Navlinks to operas by the same composer are especially important in articles about particular operas, when the composer has written several and is noted for operas. Navlinks at the top are far more conveniently located and are not equivalent to navlinks at the bottom. (Otherwise, we might just as well put the lead at the bottom.) Update: The editors have hardly been "driven off", they just have not been able to achieve a consensus for the changes they want to make. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeating: if really wanted, these links could be part of the infobox, see an example of infobox opera or Götterdämmerung. I don't think that a reader of one opera needs first of all (on top) the overview about other operas of the same composer which could easily be found in the composer's article. A link to the list of works might also be included in the infobox if we don't trust the reader to find a navbox in the normal position as a footer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere I suggested it might be technically easier to add infobox features to the composer navbox than to add the dropdown navlinks to Infobox opera. I personally am not opposed to this idea, although one cannot know in advance if other editors would find this acceptable. Doing it that way would not be at all incompatible with the change I made on the project page  (now reverted). --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Get along
Can't you all just learn to get along? Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That'll be the day! Actually I would hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the infobox wars have been going on for years and now are the the subject of a very one-sided arb case, I'm not holding my breath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole thing [I mean the arb case] seems unnecessary to me, but then I haven't been around here as long as some other editors, so I don't have as much baggage to deal with. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

2015
I suggest to install the infobox as suggested above, without the duplication of "genre", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Gerda, only just seen this. I don't think it very appropriate. Have removed it pending further discussion. I suggest that idf you are going to add these boxes as you have at other Wagner operas, you raise the issue first at WP:Opera and WP:Wagner.--Smerus (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Replied Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, please let's have one discussion if we need one, - I don' think so. I like all Wagner's stageworks consistent, only completed what others began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 12:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)