Talk:Cosima Wagner

Citevar

An editor recently replaced some proper interlanguage links with direct links, so I restored the use of {{ill}} for those. I then noticed that the vast majority of citations are short citations, only a few used inline citations. In line with WP:CITEVAR and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, I then converted those inline citations to short citations. A positive side effect was that the narrow columns in "Citations" worked as intended. This part of my edit was then reversed by User:Nikkimaria with an edit summary "refs". I don't understand the objection and suggest to restore the consistent short citations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I support to restore your improvements, Michael. Short citations are helpful for any future editor, easier to maintain, and easier to read the prose in edit mode. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The version that received FA status consistently used short citations for books and inline citations for other source types. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) That version also had a bad case of rampant italics which was introduced by Brian on 7 June 2012 and which wasn't fixed for years (25 December 2017); want to restore that too? The FA process must have been a lot more relaxed then. Anyway, WP:FA? recommends "consistent citations" in short form. Don't you agree that the list of citations would look better in a consistent short format? And while I'm here, I would also advocate to link the citations to their entry in the "Biblipgraphy" section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd support the linking as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't you agree that the list of citations would look better in a consistent short format? Nope, I think they're quite fine as they are and have been. This system is well accepted at FA-level. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in 2012. In the meantime, a few things changed. This article could be made consistent with the Monteverdi operas, up for featured topic, by the same author whom we sadly can't ask for his opinion. When I met him, he seemed open to changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the changes to sfn were an improvement. I Support them. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

This discussion has been mentioned, yes. That is not canvassing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

In that context, it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: You didn't respond to the proposal to restore rampant italics. Of course they shouldn't, but it demonstrates that FA articles can be improved. Further, FA guidelines do not support your position on citation format. Another thing that has changed since 2012 is MOS:NUMRANGE which now recommends full numbers, not abbreviated ranges. That's a further aspect where this article could be improved. Regarding the {{sfn}} discussion elsewhere you pointed to: If implemented properly, it will not change an article's appearance at all. Are you prepared to accept consensus or should people not agreeing with you just go away? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly FAs can be improved, but it's simply not correct to say that the FA guidelines do not support the existing citation placement. If you disagree, I suggest you raise this issue at WT:FAC, as adopting your interpretation would require changing a significant number of articles. Your other proposal, changing unlinked short citations to sfn, will of course change the article's appearance, both for readers and editors; if it did not, what would be the point of doing it? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In Michael's version, we see a clean consistent bibliography, sorted by alphabet. In the present version, some of the sources appear instead in no order within the short citations. I prefer Michael's. I'd go for the extra service for readers to establish the links between the two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Those "no order" citations are available by a single link from the footnote in text rather than two as you propose. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are two different issues: 1) is the inconsistent citation format (six out of 160 don't use short citations); 2) short citations are not linked to "Bibliography". Correcting both would improve the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

On the first point: book sources use short citations, non-book sources do not - consistently. As mentioned, this placement is used in multiple FAs and is considered acceptable at that level. Do you have any other reason for wanting to move them, other than that you think it looks better? We could also slightly increase the column width which might help with that; it's quite tight at the moment. In terms of the second point, if you want to change the short book cites to sfn, go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox?

An infobox was added - not by me - today, and reverted citing Talk:Cosima Wagner/Archive 1. Curious, I saw there an interesting discussion from 2012. The last comment, yes by me, was added a year later and basically asks if the "consensus" was still no infobox. There was no answer. Where are we now?

• I support a short infobox for Cosima Wagner, with her basic information, which in her case would include father and husbands, prominent in history. I actually like the infobox from 26 December 2012, also pointing at her activities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  It does not seem that anything has changed since that version was opposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't take part in that discussion, which I noticed only a year later. Brianboulton, the key editor of the featured article, said "No consensus is absolute or eternal", and would likely say the same today. He also said "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." Michael Bednarek opined that Persondata provided machine-readabilty, but the template isn't used anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now Wikidata exists for that purpose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  You replied only to the last comment. What about the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  "No consensus is absolute or eternal" is a true statement, but not a motivator to change. The loss of machine-readability could have been for some, but this potential concern has been mitigated by the creation of a dedicated data-storage project. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  It looks like this question is not of prime importance for others to join the discussion. Brian said correctly that he was more or less the sole editor. He added infoboxes even to his composers' articles (Percy Grainger for example, trying a compromise as early as 2013). I don't think he would have reverted in 2022. How about you restoring that infobox, to have her look like some other relatives of composers, thinking of Clara Schumann, Alma Mahler and Imogen Holst (the latter also a FA by Brian)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Would removing infoboxes from those articles for consistency with this one be an appropriate rationale? If no, I'm not seeing how it could work the other way. And unfortunately we can't ask Brian. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  While we sadly can't ask Brian, we see what he did for Grainger and Imogen Holst. - Should we run an RfC, really? - I'd rather not waste peoples' time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Then don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Then revert the revert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  If you feel an RfC would be a waste of time, you have the option to leave the status quo in place. Live and let live. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'll first notify Classical music for more input here. - I didn't do a thing to the status quo, but defend the new look by another user whom I didn't meet before but whose contribution I like. live and let live (2018). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm familiar with the quote, but I'm not sure that phrase is mutually understood, based on this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I support an infobox. The linked version from 2012 looks good. Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes for people seems pretty standard practice in any well-developed article. They collect basic information - birth date and location,death same, spouses, marriage dates, relatives of note and so on in convenient quick guide that prose text isn't particularly suitable for. Now, I do think Honoré de Balzac's infobox is maybe a bit over-filled, but it is a pretty decent introduction to him. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.6% of all FPs} 08:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The inclusion (or not) of an infobox is something that's decided at the article level, and using rationales relevant to the specific article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Entirely oppose. I fail to understand why this simplistic and, in effect, anti-encyclopedian, "tool" is still promoted by some. The article is FA as it is, and its first paragraph contains all that is necessary for an introduction.--Smerus (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps read this summary of a 2021 community consensus to understand better why? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with the summary of a 2021 community consensus linked by Gerda Arendt above, in that, broadly speaking, it's a useful thing, although it remains optional. As an editor I find it a good hedge against errors and outdated information in the main text, because it makes it easy to spot disparities. Only a few days ago when reviewing an article at DYK it enabled me to quickly spot that there was an error in a biography-subject's date of birth, because the date in main text did not match the date in the infobox. In that case it was important because the subject was a war hero who had died young, so that his age at death mattered. Another point is that an infobox will often allow a link to the biography-subject's website, or an official website about them, and that is something that we won't find in the header. Perhaps that is not relevant to this article at the moment, but an official website or webpage about Cosima Wagner in relation to the Bayreuth festival could easily appear in the future. Another aspect is the range of devices that our general audience is using. A high proportion of that audience only has their phone available for looking things up, most of the time. If there is an infobox, it appears the top of the article on your phone, and you can find basic information there quickly. It happens that I accessed this article late last night on my phone, when my pc was turned off, and I was faced with a long wall of text and a lot of scrolling. I have happily read huge tomes and heavy novels all my life (I recommend the Nibelungenlied ...), but on a phone this article feels like a lot to get through, and I would have liked an infobox at the top, for sure. Storye book (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

  because it makes it easy to spot disparities Or, put another way, it makes it easier for disparities to exist, because if there is information requiring updating all of a sudden it has to be updated in more locations. It also isn't needed to provide a link to an "official" website, and indeed gives undue prominence to such a site in cases like this one where that would not be a key detail. As for mobile, the present layout presents the first paragraph of the article first, above the image - this provides readers with a quick understanding of the actual significance of this subject, something obscured by a data-based template. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Sometimes people make comments in discussion for the purpose of improving Wikipedia. And sometimes they make comments for the sake of winning an argument, whatever the consequences. As I said above, an infobox remains optional, and I was not necessarily recommending that the article should have one (although my personal preference is for an infobox when creating articles myself, partly for the reasons given above).

  Yes, an extra location for duplication of information does mean that updates must be added to more than one location. But if that were an argument for not having more than one location for the same information, we would have to ban wikidata/authority control, the article categories, and oh yes, the header - which as you say, usefully summarises, and therefor duplicates, information in the main text.

  It does happen sometimes that (for example) the subject's bmd dates in one place contradict their bmd date in another place. That may be because an update is not completed in all necessary locations. But it can also be because one location contains a typo, or because a new editor has made a mistake. Disparities encourage us creators, watchers, editors and reviewers to check the facts, which is always a good thing.

  As for the benefits of a link to an official website, I agree that Cosima Wagner probably does not have an official website which would be good enough to link to the article at the moment. However an official website for someone like Elvis Presley, for example (which I have not looked at), would probably add something extra, such as other public views and opinions of the subject, as opposed to the formal and carefully-cited information in the article. Cosima Wagner, as the article says, is controversial because of her antisemitic attitude. The article is tasteful and does not pursue that matter in horrible quoted detail; the article mentions her attitude. But, should any future official website about her expand that kind of key detail, then it should be linked and not hidden away, "lest we forget". So there may in the future be arguments for a prominent link to such a future website.

  Regarding the phone/mobile view, we all have different requirements when using our phone for looking things up, and such a requirement may not always be to find out the significance of the subject. Readers frequently already know that - they just want to find a basic detail.

  Today I had a piece of luck and happened to meet someone likely related to a biography subject with a rare surname whom I had written about years ago. In conversation with the descendant, I needed to quickly find out where the subject was born, looked it up quickly on my phone, and we confirmed in seconds that the subject grew up very close to where my acqaintance's father was born, and that it was therefore worth checking both the article and the person's family history to confirm whether or not they were connected. The person is now checking out their family history with the aim of searching out a photograph of "my" biographical subject. We may not find any photograph, but the infobox was very helpful on that occasion, because we only had moments in which to exchange information, and the infobox did the job.

  I am not trying to force an infobox into this article, so you have nothing to be afraid of. I can see that (for reasons that I do not really understand) feelings have in the past run high on this matter. What I am doing, is saying that the issue is not straightforward, and that the possibility of using an infobox in any article is not always the very devil which should be kept out at all costs. Storye book (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I quite agree with your last paragraph; I don't think anyone here would suggest that infoboxes generally are never an improvement, any more than they would that they are always. As you note, we all have different requirements (not just when using our phone but in general) and it can be challenging to balance the needs of some use-cases against others - particularly when there is disagreement about what weight to assign to which factors. Thus such discussions often become contentious, and thus the value of the live-and-let-live philosophy. But since we're here: I think the present version is an improvement over the proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

Cosima Wagner
Cosima Wagner by Franz von Lenbach in 1879
Born	Francesca Gaetana Cosima Liszt (1837-12-24)24 December 1837 Como
Died	1 April 1930(1930-04-01) (aged 92) Bayreuth
Occupation	Festival manager
Organizations	Bayreuth Festival
Spouses	Hans von Bülow Richard Wagner
Parents	Franz Liszt Marie d'Agoult

The infobox proposed in 2012 was linked above. We are here because an IP added an infobox with data of birth and death only, not including the image. My proposal today would be this, which is in between the two. Her children became notable, so might be included, but let's try to be simple. Where could we meet? I'd like to say early on that she led the festival for 20 years (which the lead has in the second paragraph) but how? Her place of death - standard encyclopedic fact - isn't in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with the infobox so far, but there is something missing. Cosima Wagner has a very beautiful portrait, and her achievement in keeping Bayreuth going counts as heroism. But as a heroine she has feet of clay of a an ugliness and size to balance that. So I think it would make the infobox more balanced if we added "antisemitism" to the Known For section. Storye book (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This neatly demonstrates one of the major problems with trying to condense an actual person into a series of datapoints: "Known for Antisemitism and Bayreuth Festival co-founder" is a serious oversimplification. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it does sound wrong like that. I would rephrase it to "Known for: Bayreuth Festival co-founder; antisemitism." I agree that any data system has to be an oversimplification, but Wikidata (via authority control template) in general is not yet ready, in my opinion, to replace the article infobox in quality of content. Have you had a go with Wikidata? User-friendly it is not. After about a year with it, I can now create a Wikidata item and can add a number of bits and pieces, but I'm still struggling with its opaque reference system. If you are writing an article or creating a new Commons category, and you want to add an authority control template or a Wikidata infobox, as like as not you will find that any existing Wikidata item page for your subject is extremely bare or contains major errors. At least the infobox can be seen and easily added-to or corrected by helpful editors. Storye book (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that an infobox is made to "condense an actual person into a series of datapoints", but make standard data better accessible for readers who don't go for a more rounded picture. The data appear additional to the lead, not taking away from it, - more prose-oriented readers can easily ignore them. I changed in my proposal the "known-for" parameter for two others: "occupation" and "orgamzations". "known for" is on the subjective side, so better avoided. To be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Storye book (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes are made to summarize key facts, per the MOS. Some subjects lend themselves to being summarized in this form - for something like a sportsperson their stats can quickly be presented this way. But some (like this one) don't. People who look further will be fine with or without it, but we do the proposed reader a disservice when we design to not provide a rounded picture and appropriate summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that they are meant as a summary. The great Brian Boulton, main author of this article, wrote (in 2013): "They have been a feature of WP articles for years now, and it seems obvious that they can provide a useful service to readers who want a few specific facts about a subject, rather than an in-depth study. What is the population of Salzburg? Who was Henry II of England married to? How many first-class wickets did Jack Hobbs take? The infoboxes are there to give these answers." - a few specific facts, not a summary. Many enyclopedias begin each bio with giving name(s) + DOB + POB + DOD + POD. We could do that for her, and as said above, the relations to some people is also worth showing at a glance. Imagine a reader from a country where Cosima Wagner is an interlanguage link, a reader possibly speaking English not well, and arriving at this (fine) lead. - If you think that occupation and organization are too modern terms, I'd be ready to drop the two, but reluctantly so because I think they show at a glance that she was more than just a wife and inspiration, which comes rather late in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is fundamental disagreement with a couple of different aspects of MOS, which are better addressed elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere being where? If it concerns this article, why not here? One example please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What has WP:MOSBIO to do with the infobox? I know that I made mistakes in the edit summary, and thought I clarified on your talk. Repeating: the MoS tells me that POB and POD don't belong in the opening sentence. Most often, they don't belong in the lead at all: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. When a subject dies, the lead need not be radically reworked; Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing the death is usually sufficient, and often none is included in the lead at all, just a death date." (my emphasis) But our topic here is the proposal, not any of this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Many enyclopedias begin each bio with giving name(s) + DOB + POB + DOD + POD. We could do that for her". An infobox is not the only way of accomplishing that. I'm aware of what the MOS says, but if we disagree with that guideline, why remove the possibility? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If I don't do it, another guard of Mos obedience will. I could also ask why change the approved FA version, only to demonstrate how silly that question is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection to retaining the approved FA version; I was merely suggesting a means to address both your concerns and those of myself and Smerus. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for trying, but my concerns, about someone not speaking English well, was not met by the first sentence taking even longer to arrive at who she was. I see an advantage in having the details about some place such as Bonn in the infobox, while the lead is free to just say Bonn (or nothing). - What do you think of you adding the proposal to the article, after Smerus seems to have read the closing by Wugapodes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposal doesn't tell who she was so doesn't assist anyone in arriving at that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox proposed here is useful for a number of reasons. One is to make the basic information more easily accessible, especially to those whose mother language is not English. As (relatively) fluent English speakers we are privileged that so many people round the world feel the need to learn "our" English (or a version of it...) as a second, third or fourth or more language. It's a legacy of empire and not something that you or I - if English is our first language - have done anything to deserve. Another use of the infobox is to make basic information available quickly to people with a day job. Lots of wiki contributors seem to have all the time in the world. That's lovely. A lot of us are quite old, and we're all of us older than we used to be. But it seems more than a little arrogant to expect each and every casual reader with a couple of minutes between meetings to confront a great wall of (frequently curiously monochrome) wiki-text written by self, when all s/he wanted to know was where or when Cosima was born. We do not write this stuff for personal gratification. We do not write it in order to display to other (in this case) Wagner obsessives how clever we are or how much we know. We write this stuff for folks we never met who want to know more. And maybe we write it in order to learn more along the way. But this mantra about infoboxes being "inappropriate" to wiki-entries written for nice smart people such as ourselves about nineteenth century music celebrities seems, with some folks, to risk becoming an extreme psychopathy or a rather unpersuasive substitute for religion. It's very odd. But I don't think a blanket "I hate infoboxes" mantra makes wikipedia a better tool for communicating knowledge. Clearly I must be missing something obvious.

Discussion over whether her antisemitism belongs in the infobox is an interesting one and of course it's important to lots of our readers. And, I suspect, to most of us reading this. But conflating it with whether an infobox here will be helpful (or not) to some (or even to most) readers is an unnecessary attempt to tackle questions you weren't asked by whoever it wass that launched this discussion That's a device for the lawyers trying to muddle the evidence in order to befuddle a jury of "layfolk" under the Anglo-American justice system. In the present circumstances, however, the tactic is distracting and discourteous.

Ditto discussion of whether infoboxes would be better if they were differently designed and/or differently configured. To be sure, there's always room for improvement. That applies to (virtually) everything on wikipedia.

People - some people - seem bizarrely keen to stray from the question asked here.

Ho hum. Be well. Charles01 (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Months later: there seems to be no serious objection to the proposal. If nothing comes up within the next week, I'll move it to the article unless someone beats me to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The lapse of time does not make a rotten idea any less rotten. Brian Boulton and the FAC reviewers knew what they were doing when they agree the article without an "info"-box. It would be a courtesy to BB's memory and a favour to the rest of us if you were to find something more useful to do than pursue this obsession, which as I need hardly remind you, has caused sanctions to placed on you in the past. Tim riley talk 13:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Brian Boulton added a short infobox to his featured article Percy Grainger in 2013. He announced that on my talk page, as a compromise. I think his memory would be served well by heading for compromise. Brian was mentioned above in this discussion, - kindly read it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ps: please note that the infobox here was not added by me. I'm only defending the positions of others. I have not edit-warred, ever. I received the label "infobox warrior" after I restored the preferred version weeks later for Mozart's Spatzenmesse after the edit war of others on Easter 2013. So I wonder what he could have said in private. What he wrote (not thought) in public is open to all: compromise right after the infobox arb case, and I think it's a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Madam, kindly refrain from telling me what my friend thought, and in exchange I shall refrain from quoting from his messages to me on the subject of your info-box warring. Tim riley talk 14:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Invoking the memory of Brian Boulton is yet another device for changing the subject, and, since you like the adjective, an exceptionally rotten one in terms of simple humanity. Margaret Thatcher (since you appear to be English) acquired many admirers both before and after she died: it doesn't mean she was right about everything! (then again....) I don't understand why you should feel the need to invoke the memory of a dead man, however much admired by others and, it seems, by you when he was alive, as a device for avoiding the discussion of why an infobox is or isn't something we should, where entries grow to beyond a couple of thousand words, be prepared to provide to readers. Wikipedia is not written for the people who write it. It is written for the people who read it. Or would like to. Many of those who read it still have day jobs. (Though I accept that wikipedia is heavily tilted towards the elderly and has increasing difficulty attracting younger readers/contributors.) Folks with day jobs do not always have time to read a 5,000 word essay in order to pull out a small piece of infobox information. It would be a curious conceit and, if the entry in question is one to which you contributed significantly, a monstrous and presumably wholly uncharacteristic (and deniable) display of arrogance to insist that if our customers cannot find time to read the whole thing, then they don't deserve to benefit from the information wikipedia is here to provide. Charles01 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anyone, and never have known, anyone who wasn't all for info-boxes when they offer the reader useful information. I add them to or expand them in my own submissions continually, most recently last week, I think. But in arts biogs they generally don't add anything useful. We had one i-box absolutist the other day insisting that we should add an i-box to an article about a leading actor to contain the names of his cousin and uncle (which weren't in the main text) but nothing about what he was famous for: acting. Elsewhere we have the embarrassing i-box at Beethoven's article which far from doing what an i-box is supposed to do - summarising key points of the article - actually takes the poor reader to another article altogether. Such idiocies are, I am sure, why the present article was written without an i-box, got through PR without an i-box, was agreed at FAC without an i-box and should remain without an i-box. Tim riley talk 15:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You have not read the discussion above, will you perhaps? At some point in it I asked "Should we run an RfC, really? - I'd rather not waste peoples' time." Kindly revert your revert. I'd rather not waste peoples' time. - I said in my addition edit summary: "per talk, week is over, no substantial argument has been brought forward why this woman - a festival manager, not a "creative bio" - should not have information at a glance, like others in the post, compare Wieland Wagner". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

To repeat the answer given above: if you don't want to start an RfC, then don't. No one will force you to continue to push this forward. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

What point is there in discussing info-boxes with you as you are adamant that every article must have one, despite Wikipedia's policy to the contrary? If you can round up a posse of determined info-box warriors to overturn the consensus at FAC and the original author's intentions, so be it. Otherwise, please leave it alone and do something useful. Tim riley talk 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is wrong on several levels, but I let it go. There were three infobox RfCs in 2021 (that I noticed), all completely without me. - No discussion was needed here: An IP added a rudimentary infobox, someone could have helped them to format it properly. - Instead: the above, revert and arguments. I'd like to see that end. Time for a fresh look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The proposals in that essay are intriguing, particularly the idea of a micropedia. That's another potential solution to this conflict that has not been adequately explored, since it would allow us to tell who she was much more effectively (see discussion above). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"this conflict": I believe that Brian - whom to have known is a great gift I received on Wikipedia - would not have reverted the IP who - probably unaware of any "conflict" - added an infobox. Brians essay, and the way he treated articles and people, shows me that he wanted to overcome a conflict if there was one. I am here for the interests of foreign readers (among others) who don't have an article about Cosima Wagner in their language, and I see no reason not serve those also which doesn't take away anything from the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Overcoming a conflict doesn't mean never reverting or disagreeing, though - it means working to find a solution that is mutually acceptable, where that is possible. For example, the micropedia concept would provide a much more significant benefit to foreign readers by providing a true picture of the subject without the oversimplification inherent to the data-based format. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what Smerus, Tim riley and Nikkimaria have written. The proposed infobox adds no useful content and in fact seems to unbalance the statements in the third paragraph (her controversial legacy). In addition, persistent lobbying or advocacy doesn't seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support There is a strong precedent in usage for infoboxes on similar articles. What is the reasoning to have an IB on the bio of Wagner's first wife (Minna Planer), but not the second? I challenge those who oppose to list a single reason inherent to this article. ~ HAL333 03:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We've discussed above how the proposal does a poor job of providing a summary of what is truly key about who she was, but also: would you support removing the template in that article on the basis of consistency? If no, why is the reverse a valid argument? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    An infobox is not meant to be a "summary of what is truly key about who she was", but simply a summary of key facts about her, which readers may want to find fast, or - as Brian Boulton wrote - "a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about a subject, in a consistent format and layout". Which key facts would Brian have included? He invented the identibox in 2013 (Percy Grainger), and inserted it as the community compromise for Chopin in 2015, so I am sure he would at least have wanted DOB, POB, DOD and POD. We can discuss the other parameters. I understand his 2013 Signpost article, "Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?" also as a look at how to end a conflict that has wasted editors' time for too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We know from experience that this editor is apt to go on and on and on until she gets her way, however few people agree with her, but I honestly don't think the Violet Elizabeth Bott technique is helpful here. Tim riley talk 15:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know which experience you refer to. Our last conversion was in 2020, and you "got your will". I didn't take part in any discussions on the dreaded subject in 2021 (although there were 3 RfCs that I noticed) other than Jean Sibelius. The repetitious arguments have proven bad for my health, and I try have tried to avoid them, beginning in 2016. Kindly read once more what Brian wrote in 2013: "time for a fresh look". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am truly sorry to hear that your i-box campaigning is affecting your health, and I hope you will take a break from it and feel better. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said, I took the break in 2016, and it worked miracles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It's been a year from now, should we requests for comment to conclude this discussion? --112.204.223.162 (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Cosima Wagner Diaries / George Steiner

I added George Steiner's comment to the Archives section, since I thought that the notice and recommendation of an (impeccably respected) scholar whose contributions to Jewish Studies have also been noted, might (very, very occasionally) attract interest to the important source of Cosima Wagner's diaries as a historical primary source: They have opened up my understanding of important moments in a number of places, and I personally would never have glanced at them short of Steiner's stamp that they are more than worthwhile in terms of the attention of readers and scholars. User:Tim riley noticed that I had not cited a page number. I respect your vigilance here, User:Tim riley. George Steiner's comment appears on the jacket of volume two or even more specifically: It's from the blurb on the back cover. I could include the full quote but that seems unnecessary, and more like an advertisement for Steiner on C. Wagner's page which is not my intention here. Having searched, I assume this blurb was taken from a letter sent back to the publisher that is not otherwise published or available. So I leave it to you User:Tim riley --is this kosher or not? : )

I have no strong views for or agin the mention of the diaries, but if they are to be mentioned in the text they must be properly cited, with page number (or in this case "back of dust jacket" or some such) in the citation format used in the rest of the article, not with the bibliographical details crammed into the citations section rather than in the bibliography section, where they belong. This is a Featured Article, and consistency is more than usually important. Tim riley talk 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I see! I'll give it another shot with your recommendation--mentioning the dust-jacket in the main text since the syntax of Wikipedia's citations will not accept "dust-jacket" in the page number field. Thanks User:Tim riley ThomasMikael (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bravo! Good luck. Tim riley talk 17:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

I am asking other editors to decide whether what I regard as an obvious run-on sentence is good grammar. The dispute is about this sentence from the intro, consisting of two unrelated clauses: "They married in 1870; after Wagner's death in 1883 she directed the Bayreuth Festival for more than 20 years, increasing its repertoire to form the Bayreuth canon of ten operas and establishing the festival as a major event in the world of musical theatre." I regard it as a run-on sentence according to this sentence from WP: Per The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "run-on sentence" is also used for "a very long sentence, especially one lacking order or coherence"; specifically, coherence is lacking between the clauses.

I tried to fix this sentence by splitting it into two sentences, a very minor edit. Tim riley reverted with the explanation: "Not an improvement. Rev to agreed FA version." This appears to be based on the principle that an "agreed FA version" cannot be improved, which I believe is not a WP principle. The question is whether the sentence can be improved. Please indicate votes. Thank you. Zaslav (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Tim is probably referring to WP:FAOWN, which is does not really say FAs can't be improved. Rather, it suggests that changing something in a heavily reviewed article (particularly in the exposed lead section) is usually not an obvious improvement. In my experience, small changes like this often relate more to personal preference than clear grammatical superiority.

Regardless, I don't agree that the clauses are unrelated. Her marriage to Wagner was exactly what gave her the authority and status to direct the festival created in his honor. Having a four-word sentence is rather awkward itself anyways. Aza24 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that a simple split is not an improvement, but we may perhaps think about how to avoid the idea that she played no role between getting married and after his death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That is not a "run-on sentence". It is two independent clauses joined properly by a semicolon. It could just as easily be two sentences separated by a period (full stop), but it is correct either way. A run-on sentence occurs when the clauses are joined improperly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary is irrelevant in this case as the article is not written in AmE. I can't be certain, but I think BB wrote the sentence that way to avoid tabloidese staccato short sentences. Zaslav's suggestion that I have said "an agreed FA version cannot be improved" seems disingenuous to put it mildly. I have already explained to him/her on my talk page: "We do not quarrel with valid and helpful tweaks, e.g. here". It is difficult to AGF in the face of such misrepresentation. Tim riley talk 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:Tim riley: I did not say you said "an agreed FA version cannot be improved"; you took that quotation out of context, as anyone can verify by reading what I wrote above. I am sorry to say this but you have gall to say "It is difficult to AGF in the face of such misrepresentation." when the misrepresentation is yours.

You had not "already explained" when I wrote that, as you could have seen by comparing time stamps.

For a person who said he rejected discussion with me because, according to Fowler (you said), I misused "so", you are a notably sloppy reader. (Readers can verify that at this link.) I have rarely had to deal with anyone quite this snobbishly snide. Nevertheless, I will continue to AGF in your case, as you seem to be unaware of what you are doing. Zaslav (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree not to call this a "run-on sentence". That is irrelevant to the issue, which is whether it is a good sentence (I do not think it is ungrammatical; I think it is illogical). Of course the two halves are related, as some replies noted. In fact, the whole paragraph is related. The only valid argument I see mentioned for leaving the sentence as is, is to avoid "[h]aving a four-word sentence". What bothers me is the 13-year gap during which, one might think (as I did when reading it), nothing worth mentioning happened; the purpose of splitting the sentence is to avoid that impression. To me, the logical connection is between "in 1863 Cosima began a relationship with Wagner, who was 24 years her senior" and "They married in 1870". After years of marriage he died; then "after Wagner's death in 1883 she directed the Bayreuth Festival for more than 20 years, increasing its repertoire to form the Bayreuth canon of ten operas and establishing the festival as a major event in the world of musical theatre", which is not a short sentence in itself and has a lot of closely related information. I suggest the following, which groups closely related information: "Although the marriage produced two children, it was largely a loveless union, and in 1863 Cosima began a relationship with Wagner, who was 24 years her senior; they married in 1870. After Wagner's death in 1883..." Zaslav (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting (moderately) that you say here you don't think the sentence ungrammatical, but on my talk page you say the opposite: "Your grammar looks bad to me, so please explain why it is not". Consistency − I make no mention of honesty − on your part would be helpful. I think the text is fine as it is, but if there is a consensus in favour of your draft we can make the change you propose. Tim riley talk 09:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I made my point in my last contribution, and I am sorry for adding to the inflammation. Zaslav (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of fuss about nothing as far as I can see. The text is perfectly OK as it is. And it correctly suggests that until the death of Wagner, Cosima was not involved in running the Bayreuth Festival, her role was essentially domestic.--Smerus (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Short description

With regards to this edit: short descriptions should be short, but not at the expense of fulfilling the purpose of the description, and dates are encouraged only when they enhance the short description. The previous description was by far superior in identifying the subject of the article, including why people are likely to know her, and that information takes precedence from the date ranges per SDDATES. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I share the above view. Tim riley talk 08:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So do I. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Date of painting

The date says 1979 in the caption. Surely it should be as in the infobox in the discussion above: Cosima Wagner by Franz von Lenbach in 1879

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cosima_Wagner_Lenbach_(crop).jpg

Stronach (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to bold and change it. Stronach (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)