Template talk:Faust

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

– This pair of page moves will move the template for Faust (band) to {{Faust (band)}} and Faust to {{Faust}}. I think this is where the templates should be.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC) TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support matching the article titles (or having more disambiguatory info than the main articles) that "Article X (Y)" is not "Template X (Y)" but "Template X" which is not "Article X" is horrid, and unfortunately, way too common in templatespace template names -- (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator, and the templates will match the corresponding categories, namely Category:Faust and Category:Faust (band). —Bruce1eetalk 04:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment – I think the implementation of these moves requires an additional step: before the templates are moved, the existing transclusions amd links for {{Faust}} have to be changed to {{Faust (band)}}. As to the template: I'm with the sentiments at WP:NAVBOX –"Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."– and WP:NAV –"They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what is considered too large, but no one said anything about Template:Cinderella, which has about the same number of links, when that was going through WP:RM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
<off-topic>A requested move is not normally the place to discuss more general aspects of a template (he said paradoxically); still, has Template talk:Cinderella#Split into smaller templates? escaped your attention?</off-topic> -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the the template could be sectioned (with show/hide buttons) into Screen (Film/TV/Video game), Stage (Play/Opera/Ballet/Musical), Print (Prose/Poetry/Comics), Music (Classical/Other). But Opera could be in Music and Play could be in Print. Not sure should be where.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More background[edit]

Some background I'm picking up from Michael Keefer's 1991 edition of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus (pp xxxvii ff): Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon (as well as some lesser-known Lutheran writers) are strongly implicated in the creation and propagation of bits of the Faustus legend before the 1587 "expose". Several anecdotes later applied to Faust evidently originate in Table Talk (Luther), though not necessarily attributed to Faust there (one seems to be about Johannes Trithemius). It seems that rumors about Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa were also folded into the Faust legend. Hermann Wilken (under the pen name Augustin Lercheimer) "transmitted several stories about Faustus... which were quickly reworked by the authors of the Historia." I'm noting this here, rather than editing the template, because I'm not sure how (or if) it should be implemented. For example, Agrippa and Trithemius seem to be contributory to the character, but not as central as, say, Simon Magus. And though the others (e.g. Luther) in a sense inspired the legend, they plainly did not inspire the character, which is what is being noted in the template. This is all just from a quick perusal of my one source. If this is not worthy of inclusion, I'll leave it there, but if more of this sort of thing is wanted, or more documentation needed, I can look into it a bit more seriously. Phil wink (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would base changes in this template to changes made at the Faust article. Let me know what changes are made to that article and then I can better judge what is appropriate to do here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Berlioz not seminal?[edit]

What qualifies a work as seminal? And why is Cenodoxus seminal but not 'La damnation de Faust'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This template consists of 2 parts, and you probably didn't notice that the row "Adaptations and other derivative works" can also be "shown", and that's where Berlioz' La damnation de Faust is already listed. For my liking, this template is too big to be of any navigational use. No wonder people find duplicate entries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Yesterday, User:2a02:c7f:8651:3300:4049:61ff:34cc:d289 removed the following content from the template: Spider-Man: One More Day, Treehouse of Horror IV, Of Late I Think of Cliffordville, Printer's Devil, Oh, God! You Devil, and Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation. I need some third parties to look more closely at the content of this template. Additionally, the removal from these templates was not accompanied by removal of the template or associated category from most of these pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following items, either because there is no source connecting it explicitly to the Faust legend, or the work only contains references to Faust; some of these may belong in Deals with the Devil in popular culture or in Works based on Faust: