This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
A fact from Le Vin herbé appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Le Vin herbé was composed as an oratorio by Frank Martin, setting excerpts from Bédier's 1900 novel about Tristan and Iseut to music for twelve vocalists, seven strings and piano? Source: several
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Good article. Earwig detects no problems. AGF on offline sources. Tristan and Iseult should be wiki-linked in order to give readers context. The latter name also has a typo in ALT1 that needs to be corrected. Once ALT1 is revised, approval will be ready. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the comment, but I have to disagree with CurryTime here. I don't think either hook here is going to appeal to broad audiences. They're too specialist and are reliant on reader familiarity with the names involved. They probably also assume far too much familiarity with classical music than the average reader. ALT0 is also complicated and has too much information. I would agree with CurryTime that the article itself is fine, just not the hooks. Per DYK rules, hooks need to be interesting to readers even without them having special knowledge, and I do not see how either hook meets that criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your way of repeatedly disregarding what a different reviewer has to say is not how colleagues should treat each other. You could make an argument without striking, imho. In this particular case, I had to write hooks fast to make the deadline. I'm working on the article, and may come up with something better. You could also help to word it. I find it interesting enough that this French oratorio on a highly known topic - and completely different from Wagner's well-known Handlung (Action - he hated to call it opera) - was first put on stage (surprise!) in German (surprise!) at a well-known Austrian festival. I had no idea about this novel nor its author, but that's exactly what I'd like to promote: knowledge of the unknown. A hook should not rely on knowledge (unevenly distributed) but present facts that are new to all, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's not how DYK works. I don't want to keep repeating myself, but it's right there in the rules: a hook must be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest." The issue is that both hooks do require some special knowledge to get the context. For example, what is the significance of Le Vin herbé being performed in German in Salzburg? What is the importance of it being an oratorio made for twelve vocalists? I understand that you are an expert on classical music, which is why the information appeals to you (it was performed in German in Salzburg), which I feel would be interesting to a classical music specialist. But not everyone is, and that's the problem here. Not everyone might get why these are big deals.
I'm looking at the article right now and while I can't think of any specific hook suggestions right now, there does seem to be material there that could work with the right wording. I'd probably ask CurryTime7-24 if they could suggest alternative hooks as well as they're also a classical music expert, ideally a hook with a broader audience in mind, though in that case CurryTime would probably need to recuse from reviewing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have readers enough who know Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, with a 100-people-orchestra, and in contrast to have just 8 instruments seems interesting. (Also repeating: I doubt that people who have not heard of Tristan and Iseult (Isolde / Iseut, as here) will not profit from reading this article at all and should not be lured into it.)
I still believe that something meant for concert, in French, was performed on stage, in German, is interesting to a broad audience, and the Salzburg Festival (Mozart!) is probably the best-known. I put in the full date because I think an anniversary would add to interest.
I found more intriguing even that the solo singers are just choir members, but thought that was too specialist. Wording welcome. On the recordings, though, and in the performance I saw, they are soloists, not choir members. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also repeating: I doubt that people who have not heard of Tristan and Iseult (Isolde / Iseut, as here) will not profit from reading this article at all and should not be lured into it. That goes against the point of DYK. DYK is meant to invite readers, particularly those unfamiliar about a subject, to read about a subject and learn more about them. Saying that the hook is specifically meant only for a particular audience and is not meant to be for general audiences is pretty much against the spirit of DYK and the aforementioned criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem comes with the topic. Wagner's work caters to the masses and appeals to the masses, and this one doesn't. Should we exclude it for that reason? Should we say something besides its focus? After having added more detail, I see that we could say something about "anti-Wagnerian", - mentioning Nazi which always gets you 1000 extra clicks, but I don't go for that. The piece has great value, just not for everybody. Sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Narutolovehinata5; we have been on the same side in other DYK nom discussions, but disagree with them here. If the logic for denying this DYK nom is that the subject is so arcane as to be beyond comprehension for the average person, then what accounts for the equally arcane DYKs that successfully make it to the front page of Wikipedia every day? Some of the ones I've seen recently are about some random journo who didn't want to get hired unless some other random journo was hired with them, a money-hungry Wallachian (how many people would know what that means?) statesman, the patenting of some weird-sounding doodad, and the seditious activities of some obscure Soviet revolutionary. Their hooks were also similarly no-frills, yet were accepted. Even to me, who is perhaps unusually well-informed about obscure subjects, these are head-scratchers. So why single out this DYK nom? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear here, I didn't suggest that classical music should not be featured on DYK. Far from it. Rather, it's the hooks that seem inaccessible to general audiences. I am not familiar with what other nominations you brought up, but if those other hooks also required very specialist knowledge then I probably would have objected to them as well. I don't have anything against opera or classical music being featured on DYK and I will be among the first to defend them if, for example, people questioned their worth or if they should be on DYK at all. I think the hooks just assume too much context from rears, and how intriguing they are isn't clear unless you are a specialist in the field, a problem that honestly affects many subjects featured on DYK, not just classical music. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it again, there might be a difference between the other hooks and this one. Other hooks about other topics might be more self-evident: that is, even if you know nothing about the subject or the topic, you at least get the point and why it's a big deal. You don't need to havr much background knowledge to see the importance. With the hooks here, they are not as evident with their importance. If I were to guess, a less complicated version of ALT0 that solely focuses on the numbers stuff might be the best option here since a non-classical music fan might be very interested in how there are many people involved. ALT1 is more inaccessible IMO, since not everyone might understand that Salzburg is supposed to be a big deal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to give the fascinating story and the time early, and hint at the early sources (that Martin used in contrast to Wagner), indicating French by the name of the author. I still think that ALT1 says more about the politics, and therefore might appeal more to the broad readership, than the delicate intimacy of just seven string players. I bet many readers know Salzburg as connected to Mozart. Even if this was a small festival, it would be worth mentioning that the piece intended for the concert hall was put on stage, soon after both composition and World War II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lede tells us the work was premiered on 26 March 1942 at the Tonhalle, Zürich. A first scenic performance was given in German, Der Zaubertrank, on 15 August 1948 at the Salzburger Landestheater.
Yet the box with the premiere cast gives 24 August 1948, which was neither of the above dates. It says it's the date of the Salzburg scenic premiere, but that supposedly happened 9 days earlier, on 15 August 1948.
First explanation: I was a bit in a rush, last day to nominate for DYK. Second: perhaps the premiere was on the 15th but the live recording nine days later (which would make some logistic sense). Will check tomorrow - past midnight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good article. Earwig detects no problems. AGF on offline sources. Tristan and Iseult should be wiki-linked in order to give readers context. The latter name also has a typo in ALT1 that needs to be corrected. Once ALT1 is revised, approval will be ready. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for the comment, but I have to disagree with CurryTime here. I don't think either hook here is going to appeal to broad audiences. They're too specialist and are reliant on reader familiarity with the names involved. They probably also assume far too much familiarity with classical music than the average reader. ALT0 is also complicated and has too much information. I would agree with CurryTime that the article itself is fine, just not the hooks. Per DYK rules, hooks need to be interesting to readers even without them having special knowledge, and I do not see how either hook meets that criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
ALT0a for me too. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)