Talk:Richard Wagner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Richard Wagner/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Richard Wagner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 24, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 24, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 14, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
October 1, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
February 9, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


I see the number of daily views for this article has shot up over the past two weeks from about 4,000 views per day to 15,000 views or more - any ideas why this is so? - Smerus (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I generally blame Russian bots for everything these days, but I can't see the connection here. Honestly, this is kind of odd; that's a pretty big jump. Do you check the pageviews on this article with some regularity, and if so is the jump unusual? Anyway, using a Google timed search, the only thing I found is that one online radio show is airing the Ring this month: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I check it from time to time out of interest - it has never been at these levels.--Smerus (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thor: Ragnarok? For convenience, I've put up {{Annual readership}}/{{Graph:PageViews}} above. Feel free to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
By George, I think you may have cracked it, Michael Bednarek! We should also check the page views for Götterdämmerung and Der Ring des Nibelungen. Leave it to silly popular culture to spike a great composer through the stratosphere. I studiously boycott all comic-book movies (well, I did see the Michael Keaton Batman back in the day), but I consider Taika Waititi a genius, having watched Hunt for the Wilderpeople, so I may have to check this new thing out at some point. Softlavender (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Could be - views for Valkyrie have doubled over the same period from about 2,500 to about 5,000/day; but Götterdämmerung is more or less static at around 500, and Der Ring des Nibelungen shows no significant medium-term variation. And even if Thor: Ragnarok were the motivation, why would readers look at RW more than those topics? Afa I can see, the T:R article doesn't mention any of the above topics. Whilst Michael Bednarek's proposal seems plausible, it may be an instance of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In the meantime, as I think the main begetter of the article in its present format, I think I may congratulate myself on being the world's greatest authority on RW (in terms of numbers of readers). :-) --Smerus (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I checked Google, and reviews or mentions of Thor: Ragnarok mention Richard Wagner a lot, whereas they don't mention Götterdämmerung or Der Ring des Nibelungen, although many do mention Valkyrie(s). The movie is massively popular and hugely anticipated, especially since Taika Waititi is the movie industry's current Wunderkind. Softlavender (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you only need a few big non-WP sites to link here to give a massive boost. It will slowly fade away (until the next film). This is what has happened at our Ragnarök itself over the last 2 years. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The views still seem to be on the rise. I shall reinvest my bitcoin in Wagner views.... Or maybe the page has indeed fallen under the influence of Russian bots....-- Smerus (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

 :-) Care to make it interesting? Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


It is strange how the disambiguation sentence at the beginning of the article just references the surname Wagner and doesn't tell people what to do if they're looking for other people named Richard Wagner. I suspect a lot of people are going to be coming here looking for Richard Wagner (judge) who has just been appointed as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and will get confused. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily average Richard Wagner (judge) = 90. Daily average Richard Wagner (composer) = 4796. I guess WP readers are smart enough to know what they are looking for, and, if they don't find it where they expect, to look it up at Wagner (surname) where everyone - including the judge - is set out in straightforward, unconfusing, alphabetical order. Suspecting that readers will be confused is condescending to say the least. --Smerus (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Still bragging about those pageviews, Smerus? :) Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
heh --Smerus (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)