Talk:List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner

Another work?
I have unearthed some details about the opera Bianca und Giuseppe, by Bedrich Kittl from a libretto apparently written by Wagner in 1836. See this. Does anyone have further knowledge about this? Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(later) The opera, and Wagner's role as librettist, are mentioned in Brian Large's biography of Smetana. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth
Gutman says aspects were also used for Gotterdammerung, notably the opening of Act II which is a dialogue between Judas & Barabas transposed to be between Alberich & Hagan. nobs (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of works for the stage by Wagner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312005752/http://home.arcor.de/rww2002/rww2002/instvok/wwv.htm to http://home.arcor.de/rww2002/rww2002/instvok/wwv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

List format
The format of this list has recently been changed considerably. That format has been discussed at length – see Talk:List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner/Archive 1. Of course I'm not in principle opposed to changes to this table, but combining the columns Genre and Acts is a severe disimprovement. I suggest to restore the previous arrangement. Below are 2 versions of the list. Apart from the combined columns, they both contain the same information, so I don't understand what was gained, apart from the colour coding – which probably falls foul off MOS:COLOUR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This list contains a lot of information, meaning the columns are quite small and with the notes/comment sectioning having so much information it means it is squeezed and ends up being from 5-10 lines making the cells narrow yet huge. People are quite capable of distinguishing the "style of opera" with how many acts there are in just one cell. Furthermore there are other columns that contain a variety of different information as well so I don't really see how there is any loss of information or inconvenience. No information is lost, there are fewer characters and there is more space for bulky columns. Once those two columns are merged, it creates more space for the "comments" section so that there aren't so many lines per cell. For those with small browsers or some devices, this makes a huge difference in the user experience and the ability to summarily compare information as well as navigate. To be honest I'm pretty baffled how anyone could consider that a "severe disimprovement). Seriosuly??? Most wikipedia lists are slim and condensed, which is considerate to those with small browsers/devices and makes comparative browsing easier. Shabidoo | Talk 00:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The main difference in the list's presentation, apart from the colouring, is that the "Title" column is now wider; that is a good thing. For some reason, the width of the combined "Genre and Acts" (that ought to be "acts") column is about the same as the previous "Genre" and "Acts" together. The severe disadvantage of that combination is the loss of sortability. This should be restored urgently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support restoring separate columns for sortability. No time to lokk at the rest right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)