Talk:List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner/Archive 1

Genre
At the moment we don't have a 'genre' column, i.e. the label that the composer gave each work. For example the Dutchman is a 'romantische Oper' etc. How about adding that? -- Klein zach  09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Genre would be good for the completed works. What should we about the abandoned works, where the genre may not have been specified? (I will check with the sources in how many cases that applies) Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I think. These tables all have some blanks. -- Klein zach  22:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could number of acts be incorporated in this column, e.g. "Romantic opera in 3 acts"? That would save a column. I will work on this in my sandbox and see what it looks like. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to answer yes. For some earlier composers it's important to have separate columns for genre and acts, but I don't think this is an issue for Wagner. What do other people think? -- Klein zach  04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorting
I'd recommend making some columns non-sortable, e.g. Notes and Refs. -- Klein zach  09:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the usefulness of sorting the column "Voice parts where applicable" is also questionable. I also recommend adding invisible sort tags (Hs) to the column "Title" so that definite articles are excluded from the sort. Lastly, I think it would be helpful to split "First performance details" into "Première date" and "Place, theatre" and have these columns sortable; note that a column which lists full première dates will need properly fomatted invisible tags as well (13 February 1938 needs . Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that some columns including voice parts could be non-sortable. The trouble is, I'm such an ignoramus I don't know how to do this – I didn't even know it was possible to select which columns were sortable, Can someone help with this?


 * On the point about splitting premiere date and location, I'm unsure. Would it provide real benefit? It might risk overcrowding the table with columns, particularly if we add the "genre" column as suggested above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Splitting date and location would indeed be beneficial because they could be sorted separately. That's what we have done elsewhere. However we already have 8 columns here, and the largest numbers on the other lists are Mozart at 8 and Handel at 7. This is one reason (though not the only one) that we haven't put 'Voice parts' columns elsewhere. -- Klein zach  22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No wikilink to Richard Wagner?
I'm surprised that this article doesn't contain any wikilink to Richard Wagner, arguably the article's main page. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the link got bolded out. I've restored it at the next mention of Wagner's name. Brianboulton (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I've added Category:Lists of operas by composer. I didn't remove Category:Operas, but I'm wondering if it really belongs there. None of the other 'Lists of operas by composer' are in that category except List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra, which probably doesn't belong there either. Also you might want to add a sort, as this now shows up under "L" in its various categories. Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed modified table
Here is a proposed modified table. This is what I did:
 * combined columns "Notes" & "Refs";
 * used voice type abbreviation following this list;
 * dropped the English titles;
 * split "First perfomance details" into "Place, theatre" & "Première date";
 * re-ordered text in column "Place, theatre" to place, theatre;
 * added sort tags to "Première date" & "Title";
 * re-ordered columns.


 * Table forced to a screen width of 1280 pixels:

Comments?
Splitting libretto information, if wanted, remains to be done. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The English versions of the names are necessary. This is English Wikipedia, after all, and not all the German names are comprehensible to non-German speakers – Männerlist grösser als Frauenlist being a particular case in point. The "dates written" information looks wrong in the middle of the table. I see the greatest value of this table in it being a chronological list of Wagner's stage work activity,  and it makes more sense to have this information on the left as previously. The other proposed alterations look fine to me. Brianboulton (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Later) I'm working on this in my sandbox. Other matters: use of dashes to signify "no information" should be consistent; "Unperformed" should be in premiere date column, not venue column; voice parts will need a key (for non-singing people), if these abbreviations are used; the citations, previously in a separate column, apply to the whole line, not just to the text in the Notes column, so we may need the ref column back. Give me a little time. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some comments: I like seeing composition dates next to performance dates. I think that's more informative than separating them. However I think we should be grammatically consistent with headings. Can we say 'Composition' rather than 'When written'? Regarding, voice parts I'm usually anti-abbreviations but I think they work here. (I am wondering however whether we really need this voice info in the table. The only other list that has it is the Mozart.) Combining notes/references looks excellent to me. Another minor point: I've been italicizing words like unperformed and unfinished that have a 'not applicable' kind of meaning. -- Klein zach  04:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point with regard to the references. These cover information in the whole line, not just the notes to which they are now attached. That's why they should have a separate column. Given the amount of information we want to get into the table  I agree that voice parts are probably unnecessary, and will experimentally drop them to avoid overcrowding. I will try and get consistency in the date titles, but I remain convinced that dates of composition should be to the left of the line, along with the WWV. I appreciate all the suggestions, but I've got enough to work on now, so I suggest further comments wait until I have produced a revised version. Brianboulton (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (Later) I have revised the table to my preferred version. "Genre" has been added, "Voice parts" dropped. I have retained my preference for composition dates to the left. The reasons for retaining the references column are explained above. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I take your point about the references and agree a separate column is necessary. However I don't see the logic of separating composition and performance dates as this is information I would instinctively compare. How do you see this?
 * Regarding genres: these have been left untranslated in other tables (please also see capitalization style) and indeed in opera genre categories in order to avoid all the possible ambiguities. I strongly recommend this. Also the other tables — as well as Grove — list genres before acts. (See for comparison Schubert stage works. -- Klein zach  02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Opera Project style guide cites the Mozart opera list as the recommended format; this has composition dates on the left, per Wagner. My instinctive feeling is that this is right, although it seems that most such lists don't show composition dates at all. However, I don't feel strongly enough about it to make it an issue, so I will amend as you suggest. As to genres, I'll work on this. It probably means that most of the incomplete works will be genre-less, since I have used informal descriptions taken from the sources. I will also place genres before acts. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can fill in the genres if necessary. I can get the information from Grove. -- Klein zach  13:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you go and move columns around by hand, let me point out that I wrote a tool (WTROC) to do that; see my user page. If you're not comfortable to run command line tools, I'm happy to do it for you (I've done it for most of the existing lists). Just let me know where to find a table you want re-ordered and how to re-order it (although it may sometimes take a day or two for me to get to it). Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The table to be reordered is on the article page. The agreed final order of columns is WWV; Title; Genre; Acts; Date composed; Premiere date; Place and theatre; Notes; Refs. Help much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Just one small point: can we say 'Composition date' rather than 'Date composed' so the headings have consistent English usage? -- Klein zach  10:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's been done, too. Can you tell me where the Grove list (for the genres) is? I can't find it in Grove Online. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the print version: vol 4 page 1065 etc. Should I do it for you? -- Klein zach  22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would; my library only has 1980 print version - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Only problem is Meistersinger which has a blank in Grove. Whatever we put would probably be wrong . . . -- Klein zach  10:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Michael Bednarek: Would it be possible to 'unsquash' the notes a bit? -- Klein zach  23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

More comments
Michael extended the Notes to 35% of the table width. This was a bit too much, because it squeezed the title column. I ahve adjusted the Notes width to 30%, and I think the balance is right, now.


 * I'm using a 15 inch screen and there is a problem. For example the notes for Wieland der Schmied are now spread out over 16 lines. Ideally with these tables we should have a balance with several columns each around 3 to 5 lines to ease the readability of the information. -- Klein zach  01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Weiland note spreads over 16 lines I don't think the problem can be just the column width setting. That's two word per line – are the other longer notes affected? I have to say that the overall presentation of the table on my display now looks excellent. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the other notes are affected by the column width. That's the way it works. The columns are the same width up and down the page. What size is your screen? -- Klein zach  22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to be snappy. I'm trying to understand your problem and it makes no sense at the moment. The Weiland note is 32 words long and spreads over 16 lines - that's 2 words per line, right? You say all the other notes are likewise affected - do they all have 2-word lines? At what point in the table's development did this distortion appear on your screen - for example, was it there when the notes setting was 35%? My screen, which shows a properly proportioned table, is 13 x 8 inches with a diagonal of 15 inches. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snappy? Michael and I have successfully done 40+ of these lists. It's quite simple. If one column is too narrow, then acres of white space open up in the other columns making the table unnecessarily long. If we have an even distribution of text across the table, it's easier for the reader to look at. Michael's monitor is larger than mine so he sometimes sees the tables a bit differently, but your one is the same size as mine. As for your question: yes it looked better at 35%. It was more balanced, though the notes still had the most number of lines. (Some cols. could probably have been reduced.) Shall we leave this to Michael to sort out? He's very good at it. -- Klein zach  01:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the rendering of a table is dependent on the horizontal number of pixels available in a browser's window (resolution), not on the physical screen size (although normally there is a limit in available resolutions for a given screen size). I can duplicate the effect of 16 lines for Wieland's notes if I set my browser window to 800 horizontal pixels. Frankly, I consider such a low resolution impractical for web browsing. At 1024 pixels, I get 11 lines, at 1280 there are 4. Setting the percentage of the Notes column to 35% will obviously make more room for that column and use fewer lines. The only obvious column which could be made slightly narrower is "Composition date", either by rephrasing the term to a shorter version or by introducing soft hyphens (&amp;shy;). However, I really recommend investing in a graphics card/monitor which can display at least 1024 horizontal pixels, better 1280 (which will be barely readable on a 15" monitor — I consider a 17" monitor as minimum, better is 19" (mine is 24" with 1920 pixels).
 * Another option is to force the column widths to be so wide that the table will exceed the browser's window and the browser will add a horizontal scroll bar; I've replaced my first draft above to the one from the current article, forced to a width of 1280px. This is most probably not what we want in the article, but you can play with this by changing it for a preview. What do you want me to do? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than change the percentage I've put in some breaks to try to eliminate white space. Is it an improvement? What do you think? I had to (soft) hyphenate Bühnenweih­festspiel! (FWIW my resolution is 1024 although I had a dock on one side of the screen.) -- Klein  zach  11:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre
I am far from happy, however, about the Genre column. What we have done is made the column largely incomprehensible to all but opera buffs and German speakers. This is English wikipedia, a general encyclopedia not a specialist publication. Mainstream genres such as "Oper" or "romantische Oper" can generally be comprehended even by German non-speakers, but many of these terms seem to be Wagner's descriptions, not deserving of the label "genre". Did anyone else write a Bühnenweihfestspiel? I think comprehensibility trumps other arguments about consistency with other lists, and that the translated forms should be used. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been through this many times before. We need to be absolutely clear about this. First of all these lists do contain specialized info. They are not for ordinary readers who will only access the Wagner biography and the main opera entries. (These readers will not be interested in obscure (non) works like Leubald and Die Laune des Verliebten etc.)


 * The genres are given in their original form to avoid ambiguity and controversy — as they are in the other lists. In the case of Wagner we have the problem of 'music drama' - previously given as the genre of the Ring operas. Many people seem to believe that Wagner used this term in preference to 'opera', however "it was not Wagner's own designation" (Millington on 'Music drama', Grove Vol 3, page 528) and Wagner actually criticized the usage in his 1872 essay, Über die Benennung 'Musikdrama'. We could add in parentheses the translations into English as used by Grove, e.g. 'Bühnenweihfestspiel (stage festival play)', though frankly I wonder whether the latter is really very informative. For the ordinary listener — though obviously not for Wagner himself — Parsifal is/was just an opera. Anyway I'm happy to add translations in parentheses if that puts this matter to rest. -- Klein zach  00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we must have translations. I'm sorry, I can't agree with your assumptions about who will read this list or what will interest them, but so be it. The important thing is to get the best possible list for the widest potential readership, and I think we almost have that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I've done the translations. Reluctantly, because I don't think they add anything useful to the list. The Grove editors consistently try to avoid translating them, though they do offer explanations, context and background. Wagner was making use of a number of genres available at the beginning of the 19th century, while trying to create new ones, hence the varying descriptions he used of his works. I just hope these English translations don't encourage silly edits. I'm just waiting for the first person to change Götterdämmerung from 'third day' to 'fourth day'. (Translations don't appear in any other iist.) -- Klein zach  01:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the translations. It might help your reservations over this if the translations are incorporated into footnotes, rather than into the table itself. I'd say that terms like "oper", "romantische oper" etc don't need footnotes since their meaning can easily be discerned. It's the later works with their more complex genre descriptions that need explaining. Anyway, I have started to do this; if you see problems, then I can easily revert. I am curious about "Handlung" as the genre for Tristan – I thought Handlung in the theatrical sense meant plot or action. Do all these translations come form the Grove list? Brianboulton (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The translations basically come from the individual Grove articles as the list itself doesn't have translations. I realize 'Handlung' means action, but Millington evidently preferred 'drama'. I agree it's better to put the translations in footnotes. Please note that German nouns are capitalized hence "romantische Oper" etc. -- Klein zach  11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * May I suggest to separate the footnotes of the genre translations from the general footnotes? I have done so now, but you can of course revert.
 * That's certainly a good idea, but can we avoid the repeating text and maybe make the text small like the notes? -- Klein zach  07:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: the translation of Bühnenfestspiel to "stage festival play" seems rather unidiomatic; in German, the prefix Bühnen- doesn't really add anything to the term — all Festspiele are for the stage. So, "festival play" seems less stilted to me. Wagner's original term Bühnenfestspiel, and it seems only he used this precise term, is of course widely used in the English music literature. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either translation of 'Bühnenfestspiel' is fine by me. -- Klein zach  07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)