Talk:Der fliegende Holländer/Archive 1

Comment
changed "The opera may be referred to in English by its original title or in translation."

to: "The opera is referred to in English by its original title or in translation."

Anyone can call it whatever they like. Whether you'll be understood by others is a different matter. I assume the author meant what I changed it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snpoj (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Recording
Much as I like the idea of having a link to a complete recording of this work, I suspect that this link probably breaches somebody's copyright, and should therefore be removed. Could the original editor provide any information as to how this recording might be out of copyright? See WP:Copyright for more information. Thanks, --Dogbertd (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Versions
Is anyone thinking of adding reflections on the various versions of this opera? I am due to see this work for the first time at ROH in early 2009 in a 'one act, no interval' version. ROH claims that this is Wagner's preference. But other sources I have seen (e.g. Amanda Holden's Opera Guide) note that Wagner never oversaw such a production. And how precisely do the versions differ? I'm far too unknowledgeable to add anything on this. Can someone else enlighten us authoritatively? Thanks, GBViews (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What About the Overture?
Shouldn't the article say something about the overture? Surely the overture is one of the most performed compositions of Wagner, quite apart from the opera itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.224 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

summary
There is a mistake in the summary. At the beginning of act three the villagers are urging the Dutchman's crew to LEAVE their creepy ship, not go "onto" it -- they are already there.

A comment on the last tableau -- modern directors seem to find the "ascending to heaven" image impossibly hokey and try to symbolize the redemption some other way. In the three productions I've seen, the lights go out on the villagers and the couple are spotlighted embracing, while the ethereal music implies the spiritual side of the ending. One production had the inspired idea of showing Senta's dead body (played by a double) just before switching to the spotlight, so that the audience knows the spotlight is showing the afterlife. CharlesTheBold (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the summary. Thanks for pointing things out. Feel free to fix similar errors yourself in future. As for the other point, we could do with a section on performances but content should be referenced. If you could find reviews online of the performances you went to or have copies of the programmes, they may mention what you say.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'Redemption by love'?
I've removed the last part of the sentence that previously said: "The central theme is redemption through love, *to which Wagner returns in most of his subsequent operas*."

Anyone who wants to restore it will need to answer the following questions first: i) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Lohengrin'? ii) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Rheingold'? iii) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Walkure'? iv) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Siegfried'? v) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Tristan'? vi) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Meistersinger'? vii) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Gotterdammerung'? viii) Where is the 'redemption through love' in 'Parsifal'?

It seems to me that the idea of this being a theme 'to which Wagner returns in most of his subsequent operas' is *complete rubbish*. Pfistermeister (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that in several of his operas this theme is evident. I take The Ring cycle as a whole (as did Wagner), but Brunnhilde throws herself into the funeral pyre because of her love of Siegfried (and Wotan), returning the Ring to the Rheinmaidens, and thus thwarts Hagen's plan to gain the Ring. In Meistersinger Sachs is redeemed because he gives up the possibility of winning Eva's hand even tho he loves her. His reward is the undying love of the people (wouldn't satisfy me, but hey, this is opera.) In Tristan, the pair are redeemed from the illusions of Day by their lovers' suicide pact. In Parsifal the hero redeems Kundry and Amfortas because he expresses the form of love known as compassion. You don't mention Tannhauser because here the RTL theme is completely obvious. I'll give you Lohengrin, where the message appears to be a dire warning about curiosity. Seems to me that the sentence could simply have been modified thus if you found it so offensive: *to which Wagner returns in his subsequent opera.* --Dogbertd (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it 'could be argued' that you are just making 'redemption' and 'love' mean *whatever you need them to mean* in order to go on pasting the same words over a many operas as possible. What you've written is *forced* and *utterly ridiculous*. Pfistermeister (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To Dogbertd: I really don't understand why you want to waste your valuable time arguing with this MasterBaker who has NEVER MADE A SINGLE CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO ANY WAGNER-RELATED ARTICLE.

To the MasterBaker: I do not know what is eating you up inside, nor do I understand what trauma's or frustrations are bubbling in the underground sewers of your undoubtedly intelligent brain, but I suggest you start your own project and stay away from a collaborative effort like WP, or even better: stick to what you do best: adapting ridiculous machine translations from German WP and passing them off as your own contributions.

To all: this was my final contribution to this entire project. As I have said before to the popular music contingent: Live long and prosper, and may the force be with you. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well I usually try to assume good faith, although the tone of Pfistermeister's comments did make me wonder. So long Francesco, and thanks for all the fish.--Dogbertd (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus, I'm afraid. Both sides main arguments (consistency with related articles vs commonness in English sources) are firmly rooted in WP:AT and, seeing as both sides show clear evidence, neither carries more weight than the other. The supports do have a slight numerical majority, but nothing significant enough for me to call it a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Flying Dutchman (opera) → Der fliegende Holländer – Reason: move this opera by Richard Wagner to its original German name, consistent with his other works, such as Die Walküre. The work is by now performed in German not only in Bayreuth, but in international opera houses. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not least because the overture is still much more often performed and recorded than the opera itself, I would say this is still the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Unlike most of Wagner's titles (other than those that are names), it has a ready & meaningful translation into English. Obviously it sounds odd to native German-speakers like Gerda, but there we are. Note also the long list at Flying Dutchman (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose nominator has not proven the usage of this proposed title in English as the primary form. This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  – This seems to be the dominant English usage. As for the reason that it's the only Wagner opera title on Wikipedia in English: only 2 of Mozart's operas are named here in English, for the same resaon (The Marriage of Figaro & The Magic Flute). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind to Support – see below.
 * Oppose - It's decreasing, but comparative search shows that it is still clearly dominant by around 3:1 even in sources of the last 20 years. As per Michael Bednarek's comment above there are only a few very standard repertoire works using English names. If we were talking about Braunfels Die Vögel (opera) then even though it also probably garners more hits for "The Birds" it wouldn't be helpful to anyone to force an English name. However the Dutchman, like Figaro and the Flute are in a different category as international musical currency. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - What they all said. Sorry, Gerda, but there is no one-to-one relationship between the language an opera is usually sung in and the language in which the title is rendered.  Witness The Barber of Seville, The Tales of Hoffmann, War and Peace, The Queen of Spades, The Bartered Bride et al, as notable exceptions to your thesis.  For many years, Eugene Onegin was referred to in the anglosphere by the German name Eugen Onegin, even when being sung in Russian.  Thanks god such days are gone and we're much more comfortable now about using our own language to name things, if not to sing them in.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you opposers aware that this is the only "opera" by Wagner in English? I understand the remarks from history, but would like to see consistency there. I am not talking Figaro and Flute, not War and Peace, but the works of Wagner, 200 this year, article in FAC, - that where I noticed. If it's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (all his others!), it should be Der fliegende Holländer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I had my way, it would be The Mastersingers of Nuremberg, not to mention The Valkyries, The Twilight of the Gods and The Ring of the Nibelung. But consistency is not the thing here, much and all as I honour that general principle.  It's what these operas are actually known as.   This one is The Flying Dutchman by a wide margin.  We don't decide this, the opera-going public does.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer back to this, and additional similar discussion, at Talk:Pagliacci:
 * "If an opera was called X by its creator, how could it possibly become "correct" to call it Y without his imprimatur? Did Leoncavallo ever sanction this? I have no problem with acknowledging that many, many people do in fact call it I Pagliacci (which should probably be spelt I pagliacci). But to leave it at that, as if it was a perfectly OK variant, is misleading. Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong." -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Montanabw says, below, "even if 10,000 people say a mistake isn't a mistake, it's still a mistake. Or here, the weight of the votes goes against the weight of the most respected sources." I agree - it's still a mistake. Gerda is right. And what, exactly, is the problem with redirecting to the composer's title from one that "fifty million [English-speakers] can be wrong"? Milkunderwood (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not one bit of code would need to be changed, the opera would still be found under The Flying Dutchman. Do we agree that the following sentence (in Richard Wagner, for FA, remember!) is awkward_ "... he nevertheless reworked both the Dutchman and Tannhäuser? - I tried to fix it but was reverted, therefore we are here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? Of course the code would change. Have you forgotten you are proposing it be moved to Der fliegende Holländer?  That is what the article would be titled if your proposal were accepted, and that is where the opera would be found.  People would search for The Flying Dutchman (opera) and find themselves somewhere else.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? They would search for Flying Dutchman, find the redirect and would be linked to the correct article. - Don't remind me of Moonlight Sonata, please, we had those arguments there. Try the search. - Wagner was very peculiar about language, writing his own libretti, - he deserves that his creation is named as he called it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda. I'd agree this text pipelink revert on Der fliegende Holländer (diff) seems rather pointless as anyone already in the article will know what Der fliegende Holländer is. But on titles, well. Bear in mind that en.wp still gives "English names" to some foreigners who play at Wimbledon (sigh). I think BLPs are a bit more of a priority in this area than opera titles. The WP Classical music is already pretty friendly to the "main" European languages. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you know that I dream of an infobox on Wagner? I just added the English translations, please check. I don't see a reason why The Dutchman should be handled differently from ALL other Wagner "operas", and I suggest to give the translation to English with every first mentioning of the German title in an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: I am not against English-speaking people to understand German titles and actually helped with the translation of this Dutchman (which I just added to the disambiguation): Overture of 'The Flying Dutchman' as played at sight by a bad spa orchestra at the well at 7 in the morning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency with all other Wagner operas on WP. (Including Meistersinger, Tristan und Isolde, Der Ring des Nibelungen). Those opposing have brought in concepts such as 'primary form', performance of the overture, etc., which seem to me to be WP:OR. Wagner wrote 'Der fliegende Holländer' - anyone who looks up 'The Flying Dutchman' gets to the article by redirect. You just need, e.g., to change the opening sentence to 'Der fliegende Holländer, known in English as The Flying Dutchman.....'. --Smerus (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – As JackofOz pointed out, consistency doesn't come into it. Per WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines, we follow WP:COMMONNAME. However, I can see Gerda's point where the use of English titles in certain parts of Wagner's biography is decidedly odd – e.g. juxtaposing Dutchman and Tannhäuser. I think that in those circumstances the use of the German title is better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. There could be numerous contexts where we might prefer to have the German title show up, and that is exactly what piped links are for. But article titles are beyond such considerations, being governed by rules we've all fought hard to uphold.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  11:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also agree. FWIW, I also think Wagner's bio, and say articles on Bayreuth, should use the German. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, I used those piped links, see above. Repeating: I was reverted, and (therefore) now we are here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I get 13,400 (46 pages of hits) post-2000 English-language GBook results for Wagner opera "Flying Dutchman" -llc -Der-fliegende-Holländer, 2,750 (the first 17 pages or so are relevant) for Wagner opera "Der fliegende Holländer" -llc -Flying-Dutchman. Kauffner (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you get more hits for Moonlight Sonata than Piano sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). Still - and I think for good reason - that article is called on Wikipedia in consistency with other similar works by the same composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But then, we have Minute Waltz (which wasn't even Chopin's title) and Grande valse brillante in E-flat major (Chopin) (which was), but all the other Chopin waltzes are like "Waltz in F-flat minor, Op. 947". --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about staying with Wagner, just look at the template, one English, all others German: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was bold and changed the navbox, encouraged by the discussion below, so you can't see any more how strange it looked ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * see also:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/oct/19/der-fliegende-hollander-review
 * http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/history/stories/synopsis.aspx?customid=42
 * http://www.teatroallascala.org/en/season/opera-ballet/2012-2013/Der-fliegende-Hollaender.html
 * http://theoperacritic.com/searchsuite/performance.php?searchtype=2&opera=fliege
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "How about staying with Wagner" - who was it who introduced Beethoven to this discussion? When you have so many bites at the cherry, Gerda, I struggle to believe that you accept or understand the notion of WP:Consensus.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get the cherry image ;) - It was Kauffer who introduced Beethoven, because he was the one who wanted Moonlight Sonata, looking at google findings. It seems to me that opera houses arrived at a consensus to present "Der fliegende Holländer". Wikipedia doesn't have to follow, of course not, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe better known internationally as a second bite at the apple. In this thread, Kauffner has not mentioned the Moonlight at all, not even once.  You have mentioned it twice.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Learning, - I won't take a third ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: While I am normally a strong proponent of WP:USEENGLISH, I think here is one place where IAR applies, and really, there are plenty of grounds within the rules to make the change. FYI, Googling "Der fliegende Hollander" Wagner gives me 1,610,000 results.  Seems adequate. But further, use of the German title at major English-speaking opera venues is quite a convincing bit of evidence to me- what would be a more RS for what to call an opera performed in the English-speaking world than the people at the Met and the Royal Opera?  Further, there is a place to show respect for consensus within a given subject.  Looking at Category:Operas_by_Richard_Wagner, I see that this is the ONLY one that is not listed in German. That includes Tristan und Isolde which would clearly have an obvious English translation.  I believe here that listing both English and German translation in the lede, keeping all plausible redirects and dabs, and perhaps a brief discussion of English-language sources using the German title (the Met, the Royal Opera...) would teach the issue to the reader and educate everyone. Wagner is German to the core, using the original language here is appropriate and not a violation of WP guidelines.   Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A modest proposal: In the article Richard Wagner, which seems to be the casus belli, there are seven mentions of The Flying Dutchman, three of them in the text (hmm, WP:OVERLINK), one in a caption and three in the Notes and Other sources. Can't the first of these be piped as Der fliegende Holländer, the other three text/caption occurrences be delinked if necessary and changed to Der fliegende Holländer, and the Notes/Other sources left as is.  Incidentally, I notice that the navbox under the picture of Wagner in the opera articles already has the above piping (except in the article The Flying Dutchman (opera)). Bit of a storm in a teacup, I say, but my vote is Oppose. --GuillaumeTell 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes had been applied and had been reverted, repeating: that's why we came here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That piped link in the navbox is there since its by, wait for it, GuillaumeTell. Once this discussion has run its course, that link might need adjusting. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was told that piped links don't work in templates, and at present it's not piped, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I have no recollection of creating the navbox but obviously I did.  I might add that way back in the mists of time (January 2006) when WP:WPO was getting its act together, now-semi-retired User:Kleinzach and I had a discussion (which I can't now find) about WP:USEENGLISH and we fairly easily arrived at a consensus, see here and, ultimately, here. --GuillaumeTell 17:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - My lonely attitude is expressed here; and I note that at Amazon (which I realize is disparaged at WP, but is where the hoi polloi look), just about the only "Flying Dutchman" brought up is a nickname for André Rieu who made several albums of - get this - Strauss waltzes.) Even Amazon redirects from "The Flying Dutchman" to albums that are all properly labeled Der fliegende Holländer. Wikipedia has redirects, too - they're pretty useful. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You aren't the only supporter, and even if 10,000 people say a mistake isn't a mistake, it's still a mistake. Or here, the weight of the votes goes against the weight of the most respected sources. Here, I would go with the Met.   Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. I wonder if something called "The Flying Dutchman" has ever been produced anywhere - would it be sung in English? Milkunderwood (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been performed under that title by English National Opera, where all, or nearly all, operas are performed in English, and by Opera North, who also performed it in English, and quite likely by other UK opera companies. --GuillaumeTell 12:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No doubt about that, but it is not possible to speak about Wagner composing the work or its performances in Bayreuth (or now at the MET) using The Flying Dutchman. I offered three solutions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is possible, Gerda. Tolstoy wrote a novel that he called Война и Мир, but we call War and Peace.  Johann Strauss II wrote a waltz that he called An der schönen blauen Donau, but we call The Blue Danube.  The list is literally endless.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I learned Kafka. He wrote a novel that he called Das Schloss and you call The Castle. The featured article says he wrote Das Schloss (The Castle). First was Das Schloss, then came The Castle. I think it's fair and simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: I see a few slight differences: Tolstoy's work is in a different character set, the waltz is an instrumental piece. Der fliegende Holländer was first a piece of literature, the libretto, and relies on language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but The Sorcerer's Apprentice is literature in German, The Charterhouse of Parma is literature in French, and Six Characters in Search of an Author is literature in Italian. I'm not sure how the fact that the Dutchman libretto is literature equates to a valid reason for changing the title of this article. Interestingly, it was first performed in London with the title The Flying Dutchman, but was sung in... er... Italian. Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't misunderstand: literature is only a side comment to a side comment. My reasons for a move are above, including consistency within Wagner's works, I don't see why it's Dutchman but Meistersinger. If the frequent playing of the overture is a serious reason against a move, lets have a separate article on the overture ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, San Francisco Opera, Boston Lyric Opera and Los Angeles Opera call it "Dutchman", although they were/are performed in German. Most smaller opera companies in the US also call it "Dutchman", e.g. Kansas, Virginia, etc.. Although Lyric Opera of Chicago calls it "Holländer" in their performance archives, they call it "Dutchman" in singer bios etc. Notably, press reviews of both the ROH and the Met's productions tend to call it "Dutchman", probably because "Der fliegende Holländer" is such a mouthful. Ditto Italy where La Scala calls it "Holländer", but press coverage uses the Italian "L'olandese volante". So you pays yer money and you takes yer chance. Frankly, I'm completely neutral on the re-naming issue. The only thing that makes this rather different from The Marriage of Figaro and The Barber of Seville, is that those names are primary. Here, the primary article is the one on the legend, not the opera. I do think that within an article about Wagner and in the navboxes, using a piped link with "Dutchman" in 's to keep everything consistently in German is OK. Voceditenore (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the details. You do think that within an article about Wagner and in the navboxes, using a piped link with "Dutchman" in 's to keep everything consistently in German is OK, but exactly that was reverted twice, and exactly that is why we are here. Please see my three solutions (just above), predicting that this page will be moved by 2020 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: I understand that piped links are not acceptable in nav-boxes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with using links to re-direct pages in navboxes but not piped links. Loads of navboxes use piped links. Template:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is just one example. It seems to me that requesting to move this page is a rather extreme reaction to two reverts in another article (Richard Wagner). In English we'd say that was "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut". Why not just have a request for comment at Talk:Richard Wagner about the stylistic issue in the text. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reaction was to the first revert and this comment, perhaps there is a misunderstanding. It made me believe that the author is not willing to use a piped link, and certainly the second reverter is not willing. - Sorry, I never did a request for comment. I would prefer if I had not to do this one because I heard (more than) enough about "nationalistic" in the matter already. - I still think this work by Wagner should be titled in consistency with the others, but better a little progress than nothing. I will go and change the navbox now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Richard Wagner is nominated for Featured article, and a key requirement is that it's in a fairly stable version. Frankly, I wouldn't upset the apple-cart at this point over a very minor stylistic issue which has equally valid arguments for both sides. I'd suggest letting the dust settle, and next summer start a simple discussion (not necessarily a formal RfC) on its talk page, if you and other editors still feel strongly about it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in the process of reviewing that featured article, the suggestion is in the review, similar to Kafka mentioned above. - I don't think a phrase like "the Dutchman and Tannhäuser" is the best Wikipedia has to offer and would like to see it improved, but will better not touch it myself again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency with the rest of Wagner's opera articles. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Including Der Ring des Nibelungen as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – It seems my original reason for supporting the English title ("This seems to be the dominant English usage.") is not correct. Prominent usage of the German title has been shown above, and I have now consulted Grove and the main entry is "Fliegende Holländer, Der" by Barry Millington; "Flying Dutchman, The" redirects to it. Grove uses the German title in Wagner's biographical entry (Millington et al.), and the English title is used in that article's bibliography 7 times, the German 17 times. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine that Grove will also have the main entries for all of the following operas in Italian, German or French: The Barber of Seville, The Gypsy Baron, The Land of Smiles, The Magic Flute, The Marriage of Figaro, The Merry Widow, The Merry Wives of Windsor, Orpheus in the Underworld, Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, The Seven Deadly Sins, The Tales of Hoffmann, The Threepenny Opera, William Tell, so do we now tear up WikiProject Opera (WikiProject Opera/English names) and Wikipedia (Naming conventions (use English)) guidelines and Ignore All Rules? --GuillaumeTell</i> 10:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The case for the English title on the basis of its dominant usage is not as clear as I first thought. There is considerable evidence above which uses the German title. Here's another: http://www.naxos.com/mainsite/NewDesign/fintro.files/bintro.files/operas/Fliegende_Hollander_Der%28The_Flying_Dutchman%29.htm . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afaid I've posted a new comment up near the top of this discussion, in direct response to an argument made earlier by Jack of Oz. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Not only is it consistent with the rest of Wagner's operas, it's also the name on the CD box next to me (recorded, incidently, by the very English-speaking Covent Garden Royal Opera House!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Original title, to be consistent with his other operas.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The guidelines tell us to use English if that's an option, and "The Flying Dutchman" is certainly a common translation. Does Der fliegende Holländer look like English? If you don't buy the "common sense" argument, there is a more scientific way to determine if a phrase is part of the language, a method endorsed by our guidelines. If a phrase is commonly translated or explained upon first mention, that's a tip off that it's not English, per WP:WIAN, point 6. Here is the classic version of this opera by Klemperer. Notice the English-language subtitle on cover to explain the German. The New Grove Guide to Wagner and His Operas does it the same way. I am dismayed by the open contempt for basic guidelines like WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME that has been displayed here. The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the name of the subject, what it is called in real-world English. Kauffner (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument is not new. What year was the Klemperer recording? See? - Would you propose then to move Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg and Götterdämmerung? (After the Moonlight Sonata proposal, I would not be surprised if you said yes.) - If guidelines tell us to have the titles of 14 works of a German composer in German and one in English, perhaps let's look at the guidelines, and don't call that questioning "contempt", please, - I call it "common sense". - Certainly the reader will be informed in the first line what the work is in English, and will find it by a redirect in English. - I predicted that this will be moved by 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2013 a(UTC)
 * Common sense is indeed a rare attribute in some of these move discussions, where WP:UCN and WP:EN seem sometimes to be waved like bloody flags, and consistency is deemed to be utterly negligible. This does sound very familiar to the absurd Moonshine folderol, with same participants and identical arguments. Milkunderwood (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Klemperer's is currently the top-selling version of this opera on Amazon. It doesn't matter when it was recorded. I was referring to the cover for the 2010 reissue. This has a clever dual titling, presumably designed to satisfy both purists and listeners who don't read German. Kauffner (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Your name doesn't sound English, can we have Buyer instead? - I don't mind Mass in B minor in English, because the composer didn't give his work a name, and it is not language related. Der fliegende Holländer was first a libretto in German. (I would say the same if it was Spanish.) - Project opera usually takes pride to render titles authentically (you might call it puristic), compare Œdipe à Colone, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose because The Flying Dutchman is a well-known character that pops up repeatedly in English literature and arts and this title should be consistent with that tradition, including the different articles at Flying Dutchman (disambiguation). Changing the title to German would make it harder for non-opera researchers (say those just trying to find out where this character came from) to find the article. How many English speakers -- including those for whom English is a second language -- are going to type into Google (or whomever) the German? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your concerns can be solved easily, there's Flying Dutchman (the figure was there before Wagner), literature and arts likely go back to that, not to the opera - and in case of a move there will be a redirect in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Some time back, I created an article about Mendelssohn's little singspiel-y thing known in the English speaking world, to the extent it's known at all, as Son and Stranger, and I put it under that English title, with the original German Die Heimkehr aus der Fremde cited in the lead paragraph. Sure enough, not long thereafter the article got moved to Die Heimkehr aus der Fremde with a redirect from "Son and Stranger."  If you think your average Joe Public user would be unlikely to search for the relatively familiar Der fliegende Holländer, just how likely is it that he would type in Die Heimkehr aus der Fremde for Son and Stranger?  Yet that seems to be the Wikipedia way, and, after my initial consternation, I realized that it reflects some careful, thoughtful deliberation by our friends in the opera project, who deal regularly with such issues.  One can agree with their conclusion or not, but I think on balance, leaving aside issues of transliteration from non-Roman alphabets, it's far friendlier to the user to follow a single, consistent policy of "cite the original language of the piece with redirects from English" than to present a mishmash of titles sometimes original language, sometimes not. Drhoehl (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Original version
Wagner's original version contains and ending in a version more closely related to  a simple style,  which he updated to be closer to the  is mature style,  particularly at the end. there should be a section on the differences, since they have both been recorded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1780:DE6:4878:35FE:1F7B:9483 (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Location of Act 1
Sandwike, or Sandvika is linked to a place south in Norway, in Aust-Agder, while the city of Sandvika just south of Oslo claims on its page that the act took place there. I'm not sure which place is correct, but in either case it doesn't match up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.128.227 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Inspiration?
The header claims that Wagner actually got inspiration from Heine's short story and admitted it in his Autobiographical Sketch. However, there's a quote in the body from the Sketch that says he was in fact inspired by his voyage through Norway. I think it's fair to say he got the theme of redemption of love through Heine but the initial inspiration came from the supposed voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:5DC0:8B30:D8A3:46BB (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Archive
The archive for this talk page has been created as Talk:The Flying Dutchman/Archive 1. Shouldn't that have been Talk:The Flying Dutchman (opera)/Archive 1? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed, typo, sorry. Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)