Talk:Die Feen

Sourcing and referencing

I've added a synopsis and various other information. I've tried to indicate what source provided what information. Are other people able to supply sources for information added earlier? --Peter cohen 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Working towards Good Article candidacy.

I think that this article is not far off being suitable for nomination.

These are the things that I think need to be done first:

• Move up and format the recordings accoridng to WP:WPO standards.
• Source a couple of facts: the history of the manuscript passing through Ludwig's and Hitler's hands and being destroyed being the most obvious. Also need full citation details (author, pages) for the Sawallisch box info.
• Illustrations: I'm thinking particularly of musical ones. Is anyone here experienced in handling sound files and doing so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. However, if anyone has a text which has the illustration at [1] and can indicate its date, we might be able to include that in the synopsis.
• Should state that it's not part of the Bayreuth canon and find a source.
• Rework Sources section into references and links ones.
• Confirm what Grove etc have to say.

Anyone able to help with any of these?--Peter cohen 15:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial infobox

I see there was an attempt to put a controversial infobox on this article without any prior proposal. I think that was unfortunate. Personally, I am opposed to using that box. --Kleinzach 01:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I see "trying" an infobox, following discussions on project opera culminating in "My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so." (not by me) - There are hundreds of opera articles, several of them with a footer navbox available: I will not "propose" every single time that I replace redundant information by information about the specific article. A centralized discussion about the alternative is open. - Please be careful using "controversial", I prefer: perfectly acceptable to do so or not to do so. Back to the article: what's wrong with this specific infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "redundant information"? --Kleinzach 12:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Redundant" - if I really have to explain it once more - means that IF a footer navbox is available (as for Wagner), navigation in a sidebar is redundant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "controversial infobox", without reference to your own personal dislike for it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the infobox. Furthermore, the editor who removed it used an edit summary of "restore Template:Wagner operas until there is consensus for this change", but appears to have made no attempt here to determine consensus, or explain his objection. WP:DNRNC applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this infobox. No consensus was sought when installing it. I shall be referring to this intervention by Gerda and Mr. Mabbett presnetly in the ongoing arb disucssion on infoboxes.--Smerus (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for you to bring this to the arb case, I did it. The opposition of some users to opera infoboxes, part of the manual of style of project opera, is the central part of my statement. It is a bit surprising that people who urge respect for a restriction of a project (no infoboxes for composers) don't respect this option of a project. Repeating: no "consensus" is needed to follow a project guideline. I oppose the term "controversial" in the section header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As a reader I expect an infobox about *this* opera not a picture of Wagner with a hidden list of other operas. Agathoclea (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)