Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2

The Festivals under Cosima

I've put this section into a box because it's not really about Cosima and I wasn't sure whether it would be better here or in the Bayreuth festival article. Please let me know if this causes problems in browsers other than firefox or IE.--Dogbertd (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wagner, née de Flavigny, from 1844 born as Cosima Liszt"

Is that opening sentence intended to make sense? And in which language might that be? Is this Flavigny business plain old-fashioned vandalism? Varlaam (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

She was not "born de Flavigny"; that was her mother's maiden name. According to Liszt's biographer Derek Watson she was baptised "Francesca Gaetana Cosima Liszt". I have corrected the order of names and other misinformation in the opening paragraph. I am about to embark on a major article expansion and refurbishment, so much will change anyway over the next few weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I recently added an infobox to this article. My edit has just been reverted, for no given reason. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. While the article was TFA an infobox was added, removed, added again and removed again. Unsatisfactory, I agree, since the only justifications given for adding or removing were through (generally unhelpful) edit summaries. Changes likely to be contentious should always be raised on the talkpage before being implemented.
As I'm sure you know, WP:INFOBOX states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. In this case, there was no infobox in place when I began the article's expansion, and I was effectively the sole editor responsible for the expansion, though I invited participation. The involvement of other editors came during the peer review and FAC stages; the question of an infobox never, so far as I can remember, arose during these discussions. The assumed consensus, obviously, was that an infobox was not necessary in this case.
You obviously think that an infobox would enhance this article; let us have the arguments for this. No consensus is absolute or eternal, but let us have the discussions first, before taking action. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, congratulations on your achievements with this article. Yes, I'm aware of what WP:INFOBOX says, which is why I initiated the "D" stage of WP:BRD; neither of those pages require discussion before bold editing. If the inclusion of an infobox wasn't discussed during peer review or FAC (where, for reasons I've never been able to fathom, the FAC community generally decline to consider such matters), then that can't reasonably be assumed as consensus not to include one. The benefits of an infobox in this article, as for the many thousands of other articles that include one, are that it summarises key information from elsewhere in the article, including material not suitable for the lede, for the convenience of readers wanting a quick overview, not least those accessing the collapsed view on mobile devices. It makes that information available as machine-readable metadata on the page; and for use in dbpedia. And it will, shortly, provide an interface with Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
My difficulty on the consensus question is that, as I have indicated, I was pretty much a one-man editorial team in bringing the article up to FAC standard, and one man doth not a consensus make. I agree that the PR/FAC consensus against an infobox is implied rather than actual; one way of testing this would be to ask the participants in these reviews whether they are happy with the addition of an infobox. Or at any rate to point them to this discussion and invite them to express a view. On the merits of an infobox in this particular case (leaving aside the zealots' justification that every article in all circumstances must have one) I have looked at your proposed infobox. Would a reader wanting a "quick overview" really learn from it anything significant beyond what is in the first paragraph of the lead? Place of schooling and place of cremation don't really help to understand her; this requires a reading of the article text. The danger is that infoboxes can stand as an alternative to reading the text, and thereby give casual readers an incomplete and sometimes inaccurate picture of the subject. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I had a most helpful exchange recently with Pigsonthewing/Andy about info-boxes for cricket and political articles, which I am gratefully following up elsewhere on WP. We should, I am sure, have info-boxes when they add pithy and useful information to help the visiting reader, but when they add nothing much (as here and for most classical music articles) it is a waste of useful screen space, and I support the consensus to eschew them. Before I retired I ran an intranet for HMG, and not wasting "real estate" (groan at jargon, but point taken) was a prime requirement.– Tim Riley (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion that the infobox "added nothing much" is baseless, and is clearly disproved by the explanation I gave above. There is no "consensus to eschew them", as I have pointed out to you previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Wikipedia is not an HMG intranet and conserving "real estate" is not a consideration - much less a "prime requirement" - in laying out our articles. Even if it were, the version of the page with an infobox is, on my netbook (for example), 950x13340 = 12673000 pixels. The infobox is 275x722 = 198550, of which the image is 266x400 = 106400. In other words, only 0.7271% - less than three quarters of one percent - of the page's real estate is taken up by the non-image part of the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
"the PR/FAC consensus against an infobox" is not "implied"; it is non-existent. Individually, FAC contributors have no more - or less - say in this than any other editor; collectively, they have none. The suggestion that "the danger is that infoboxes can stand as an alternative to reading the text" is a non-sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I am hoping this discussion will not turn into the kind of sniping and counter-accusation that has disfigured other discussions on the suitability or otherwise of infoboxes. For the record, this is how I see things:
  • The opinion that in this case an infobox adds nothing much to the article is not "baseless", and is not "disproved" by any argument that you present. These are genuine differences of opinion.
  • I agree that in general FAC contributors have no more say than other contributors; in this case, however, they and the peer reviewers represent the only group apart from myself who have given detailed consideration to the article. I am quite happy for the discussion, here, to expand beyond this group and for an explicit consensus to form, whether for or against the addition of an infobox. I don't propose to lead that discussion, but will accept any outcome.
  • In advance of such an expanded discussion, while you may reasonably argue that there is no clear consensus against an infobox, it is equally clear that there is as yet no consensus for adding one – there was no such box before the TFA. I believe that the status quo should prevail until the matter is resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I hope that your comment about "sniping and counter-accusation" isn't a response to me validly refuting false assertions. That adding an infobox gives the article machine readability which otherwise does not exist is irrefutable, whatever your opinion of its value. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
"Machine readability": doesn't {{Persondata}} do that? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Only in a very limited way: for far fewer parameters, and in a way unique to Wikipedia, so not understood by generic tools and parsers. The machine readability provided by infoboxes uses opens standards found across the web. There is consensus to use the later standards in Wikipedia. Also, because persondata is hidden, it is often corrupt, missing or not updated when article content changes. For example, you only completed the persondata for this article immediately prior to your question, even though it was featured recently, during which time the personadata was very incomplete. The current persondata tells machines that two of her names were "(birth" and "name)". Such errors and omissions did not occur with the equivalent parameters in the infobox I added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am against the addition of an infobox here and to every other classical music article. Why do the same old editors keep popping up on talk pages trying to push some non-existent consensus that every article should have an infobox? -- CassiantoTalk 14:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a vote. As for pushing some non-existent consensus, your concern is valid, but don't worry, I've already debunked that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think we may have different understandings of the meaning of the word "consensus". I believe most of us use the word in the sense of the OED definition, "Agreement in opinion", but there is a subsidiary OED definition which is "the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons" (my italics). Plainly, given the absence of info-boxes from all classical music biogs except one, there is a consensus in the first sense, but as long as one person continues to insist on boxes there is not a consensus in the second sense. I should say that a consensus probably exists that "consensus" is to be taken in the first rather than the second sense. – Tim Riley (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus in either sense; and it is the former sense which I have, as usual, being using. I refer you, yet again, to the outcome of the RfC on the matter, whose findings emphasised such, and to which I have referred you more than once in recent days; and to the current discussion at the classical music project, where the claimed consensus has once again been shown to be non-existent. Your suggestion of "the absence of info-boxes from all classical music biogs except one" is also false. While I am prepared to assume your ignorance regarding the latter, for now, if you further repeat such falsehoods, I shall question your good faith and honesty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, always a good plan in an argument unwinnable by either side: smear and innuendo to blacken your opponent's name and therefore their position. It's not a terribly helpful way to proceed with the discussion, is it? - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Good gracious! I omitted to say, as I intended, "all FA classical music biogs" Mea culpa. Tim Riley (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. The use or not of infoboxes in FAs, a matter on which the relatively small FA community has indicated no interest, has no bearing on their wider use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You will find no "smear and innuendo" in my post; merely factual refutation of false claims, one made repeatedly, another which I'm happy to accept was made in error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not here to pitch my vote, I'm here to record my thoughts and to question your insistence on blotting the landscape of so many featured articles. -- CassiantoTalk 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
That may be what you meant, but taking the aggressive and confrontational approach that you do, then smear and innuendo is the way it comes across, I am afraid. There are a number of different ways you could have couched your response, but the one you chose was in an unnecessarily combative tone: perhaps next time a less antagonistic tone would make the whole conversation a little more constructive? Just a suggestion, made in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
As I reminded Andy elsewhere, the featured article biographies of classical musicians without an info-box are: Walter Bache, John Barbirolli, Thomas Beecham, Georges Bizet, Adrian Boult, Rebecca Clarke (composer), Frederick Delius, Josquin des Prez, Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré, Kathleen Ferrier, Percy Grainger, Witold Lutosławski, Gustav Mahler, Olivier Messiaen, Pierre Monteux, Mozart in Italy, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Dmitri Shostakovich, Bedřich Smetana, Georg Solti, Charles Villiers Stanford, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and The Five, Cosima Wagner, William Walton, Peter Warlock, Henry Wood. Featured article biography of classical musicians with an infobox: Joseph Szigeti. That seems pretty consensual to me. Tim Riley (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Decisions affecting a couple of dozen or so articles by a small group of editors does not make consensus for hundreds of articles among the wider community. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
ahem..."Your suggestion of "the absence of info-boxes from all classical music biogs except one" is also false." -- CassiantoTalk 19:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Tim has already admitted, above, that he made that false claim in error; and I have accepted his admission as true. Do you have a point, or were you just expectorating? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make it clearer. You said: "Your suggestion of 'the absence of info-boxes from all classical music biogs except one' is also false." Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, you are saying that it is wrong to suggest infoboxes exist on all classical biographies except one. Tim's helpful retort was to kindly list those articles to which you refer, which illustrated the flaw in your comment above. -- CassiantoTalk 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I will make it clearer still. You are reading it incorrectly. I am saying that it is wrong to suggest infoboxes exist on all classical biographies except one. Tim's post does not contradict that; my comment is not flawed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I saw the FA bit above, which I didn't see before. -- CassiantoTalk 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Infobox)

I take a pragmatic point of view. As far as I am concerned, it is a good idea for articles within a particular area of content to have a similar presentation. So the classical music/opera area articles should look fairly similar. It is also extremely important that among the editors active in an area of contant where there are infoboxes there should be a willingness to maintain them. The editors active in the classical music/opera area of content have generally shown either hostility or apathy towards infoboxes. Until such time as there is a change among this group of editors towards being willing to maintain infoboxes, then I am opposed to their being added. I am especially opposed to them being added by people who have shown no interest in the articles until they are TFA and then choose to launch edit wars when the articles are receiving maximum attention.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The "editors active in the classical music/opera area of content" (however that might be measured is not specified) do not have ownership of such articles, and their views (again, how this is measured is not specified) are not paramount. This is a Core Wikipedia policy. The RfC called by members of related projects confirmed this as the community's view. This has all been pointed out in debates in which you have been involved, more than once previously. There has been no edit war here and TFA does not mean that an article cannot be improved further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone has mentioned ownership, have they? "editors active in an area of content" does not suggest anything like it to me; you should try not to confuse ownership with the acceptable and desirable practice of stewardship. As to the local consensus point, your argument is a non sequitur: there is no greater community consensus to include infoboxes, indeed the question is left deliberately open: "use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited", which is why these delightful interactions take place periodically. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I did not say that "editors active in an area of content" suggests ownership. However, supposing that "editors active in the classical music/opera area of content" (however that might be measured) have some sort of special voice in decision making does. Reference to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not a non sequitur, when consensus among an arbitrary group such as "editors active in the classical music/opera area of content" is invoked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"The editors active in the classical music/opera area of content have generally shown either hostility or apathy towards infoboxes" is the full quote, and again I am still at something of a loss to see where anyone has mentioned ownership. I'm afraid you are wrong on the second point: and I think you may need to actually read WP:LOCALCONSENSUS properly. LOCALCONSENSUS states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale". However, there is no consensus on wiki about whether infoboxes should or should not be in articles, and as such no-one is trying to override this non-existant community consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
"when consensus among an arbitrary group" – Does that mean any group which doesn't include Pigsonthewing? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, always a good plan in an argument unwinnable by either side: smear and innuendo to blacken your opponent's name and therefore their position. It's not a terribly helpful way to proceed with the discussion, is it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(You forgot to enclose that phrase in quotation marks.) I did not intend to smear, but to note your inability to listen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be trying to misrepresent someone not agreeing with you as not listening to you; more smear and innuendo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
"community consensus on a wider scale" was determined by the RfC cited above. The "editors active in the classical music/opera area of content" suggestion is counter to that; and to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, with which I have become very familiar. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Really? There's a wider community consensus that we should have infoboxes? Could you provide a link to the policy, MOS entry or guideline that outlines that that is the case? If not, then there we may as well all stick with MOS:INFOBOX: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". As this is actually in the MOS then this is as clear a guide on the current consensus as we are likely to get. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I repeat: "community consensus on a wider scale" was determined by the RfC cited above. you really ought to respond to what I write, if at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you are talking about this RfC, there is nothing in there that defines the wiki guidelines or policy for infoboxes. You really ought to properly read what I write before replying. However, if you consider that there is a Wikipedia policy, guideline or rule within that RfC—or even on a site wide basis—that supports there is a community wide consensus to have infoboxes, please provide an appropriate link and cite the relevant clauses. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have, to my misfortune, read everything you have written. I repeat again: "community consensus on a wider scale" was determined by the RfC cited above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Your lack of adequate response speaks volumes. You are not able to cite the relevant section of that RfC, because nowhere in that very long discussion is there a community wide consensus to have infoboxes. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
My responses have been more than adequate but I shall not respond to your straw men any further. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
These are not straw man arguments and I am afraid your responses have not been adequate, which is why I have had to ask you twice—and now again for a third time—to cut and paste the words either from the RfC or anywhere else on Wikipedia where there is a community wide consensus to have infoboxes. Your somewhat evasive responses so far mean that I am struggling to keep my good faith going here: surely if you know the argument so well you will be able to cut and paste the words here fairly easily? - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reboot

Above, we have a bunch of editors saying they don't like infoboxes, and no reasons at all why the specific infobox was not suited to this article; particularly given that they find favour on many thousands of Wikipedia biographies. In the absence of any such reasons, the infobox should,as I said to start with, be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Given all that people have said above, do you see a consensus there to add one? - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Given all that people have said above, do you see a reason there to remove one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Remove? There is not one there, so a reason is a moot point. In terms of adding, I do not see a consensus to add, and that is what is needed, as you well know. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
If you need another voice, the argument to have articles in similar appearance points at having an infobox, look around a bit, both FA and not FA. If we want to serve the reader in a rush ALSO, we should have one, a good one of course, not only trivia ;) . I hope you are not simply counting votes here. Happy 2013! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely reminder Gerda, but I don't think anyone is voting or counting here. All I am doing is stating the blindingly obvious point that there is not a consensus. I cannot see where any of the participants involved in the discussion have moved on from their original stance (or if they have, then they have not said as much), which means that as I wrote above, there is no consensus to add the infobox. If there had been a box here for a while, then the reverse would also be true: that there is no consensus to add one. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
We either count votes, or we assess reasons. There have, as I note above, been no reasons given at all why the specific infobox was not suited to this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If it still needs pointing out, here's one reason why people may be opposed to this specific infobox [1] in this article: it draws undue attention to unimportant trivia and is otherwise redundant to the lead sentence. As infobox enthusiasts never tire to point out, infoboxes are supposed to provide a brief summary of crucial data. This infobox contained information that is not of central importance at all (the name of her school and the school's owner; the fact that she was cremated, etc.) This information, rather than aiding quick understanding of the article, hinders it, because the reader is left wondering, trying to figure out why these trivia are being thrown at him. ("Huh? is she notable for having been cremated? What's the deal about having attended that school? Was that a particularly famous school?" etc.) It also over-simplifies and thereby falsifies one entry that otherwise is crucial: she was not "the founder" of the Bayreuth festival, as the box implied, but, as the main text makes it clear much more efficiently, its co-founder, together with her husband. If you remove those superfluous entries, the only things left are those that are already contained in the very first sentence of the lead, and which are in fact much more quickly and efficiently transported in prose than in tabulated form. By the way, much of this was pointed out above. Pigsonthewings' claim that no concrete arguments against the box were brought forward is a patent untruth. Fut.Perf. 12:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are arguments - and not sound ones - for not including certain parameters in the infobox; not for not having one at all. What would be trivial would be changing "founding" to "co-founding" in the infobox. The lede, and prose in general, is not machine readable. Are you arguing that her marriage to Wagner was "trivia"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I am arguing that it is more efficiently handled by prose. You ignored the final argument: if you remove the trivial stuff, nothing is left that is not handled better by the prose lede. As for the machine-readability, I refuse to accept any argument on that basis. The priority is to get reader experience right. Anything to do with machine-readability is of secondary importance, and I reject the idea that any consideration of it should override editorial decisions made in favour of natural readability. If you want machine-readability, write something that is hidden and be done with it. (Besides, I can't think of any automated process that would be able to make any use of pieces of information such as "founder of the Bayreuth Festival", "cremated", or "went to this or that school", be they encoded in a machine-readable form or not. Are there any actual, real-life applications of person infobox data? The only real applications of machine-readable Wikipedia data that I am aware of are those of geo-tagging.) Fut.Perf. 13:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, if you remove the superfluous stuff you will have a WP:DISINFOBOX. Although it is that anyway IMO. -- CassiantoTalk 13:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
"I refuse to accept any argument on that basis." Your dismissal of the 21st century is noted. "I can't think of any automated process that..." As is your lack of imagination. "Are there any actual, real-life applications of person infobox data?" Yes; not least DBpedia, as discussed above. Machine readability cannot be "more efficiently handled by prose". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look around

I see infoboxes on persons that tell me something, for example Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, Catherine the Great, Marie Curie, Stephen Hawking and Franz Kafka. I can imagine a good infobox on CW could be developed, but it can't grow, if the baby of a "start infobox" is "murdered" ;) - The best person to select relevant information is the author. I could try, but really have other priorities right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cosima Wagner/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)