Talk:Das Liebesverbot

message: As at Goetterdaemmerung, I am reverting to the previous template the infobox here, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article. As that wasn't undertaken, it can be carried out now on the talk page, here, and I an notifying the projects concerned.--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain in simple terms why an infobox relating to the work in question is replaced with a generic pciture of Wagner, which apart from the fact that he wrote the piece has nothing to do with the details of the work in question? Agathoclea (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody has to ask projects or other editors for permission to edit articles. That's ownership. If you don't have any good reason why an infobox should not be added to this article, then please cease your disruptive reverting - another clear manifestation of ownership issues. I've reverted your damaging edit. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it with these opera nav boxes in the top? Navboxes should be at the bottom. Infoboxes at the top as a nice summary of the article. I agree with Rexx here. PumpkinSky talk 00:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I've restored the long-standing Composer navbox, which is used consistently for all of Wagner's operas. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; can we then remove the largely redundant template ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no connection with QAI, so I refute that particular lie, but I will explain to you that the infobox provides a quickly accessible overview of key facts in the article. It not only provides facts for any reader wanting that brief overview, but it also provides microformats that make the information available for reusers in a standard way, such as "vevent" and "dtstart". In addition, the standardised layout of label-data pairs enables researchers to extract that data from the article far more accurately. By making the information available to broader audiences without predetermining who should be reading or using our content, we improve the article. Readers expect this sort of information to be available, rather than a hidden list of navigation links, which have no place at the top of an article. The argument for consistency with other operas is merely an argument for consistent mediocrity - any and all of those opera articles would be improved by the addition of a well-crafted infobox. Now, please either engage with the arguments presented and quit the ad hominems or revert the damage you've done to this article. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in summary, it offers no advantages. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, they have a number of helpful features, as has been debated ad infinitum, ad nauseaum across dozens of article pages.  You don't have to agree that they are "advantages" in your view, but they certainly are better than a random image or, worst of all, a navbox at the top that leads people away from the article.  Infoboxes are standard in dozens of wikiprojects and exist on over half of all wikipedia articles.  As infoboxes are neither mandated nor disallowed, they are determined by consensus on each individual article.  Just because the old guard at the WP classical music projects don't like them and will never change their views on that matter does not make WP:IDONTLIKEIT one of the five pillars.  Montanabw(talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/template 

message: The synopsis section of this article was a very lengthy verbatim quote (and unattributed) from Wagner's 'Mein Leben' in the Ellis translation, and thus not acceptable as content for a Wikipedia article. I have therefore deleted it and it therefore needs to be rewritten.--Smerus (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you suppose this could be replaced with an Infobox? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Is  from 10 August 2005 more acceptable? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The early version mentioned by Michael Bednarek is noted to be taken from Kobbe. As I don't have Kobbe I can't tell how literal it is - is it a transcript or a rewrite?--Smerus (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The synopsis by Wagner that I just added is rather long, like his operas. I doubt Wagner would have been very happy with the constraints of an Infobox. (Of course, excerpts can be very popular. Didn't there used to be something called the "best square inches of art"? After all, why waste your time looking at the whole picture.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: Merits:
#
Flaws:
# It is in the position where readers are used to see an infobox.
# It's the same for all stage works by Wagner.
# It highlights in title and image a person, not a composition.
# Readers not used to collapsed content don't realise that it is a navbox.
# It navigates away from the article. Gerda Arendt (talk)
#Cannot be customized for each article
#Provides no information useful to the article itself
#New users don't understand collapsed boxes in general, just think it's a picture
#A change to the template instantly affects all articles, no individual customization possible
#Confused with an infobox Montanabw(talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side navbox 

message: Merits:
# It provides information on the article subject.
# It shows the composer around the time when he wrote the opera, and could show an image more related to the opera if we had one.
# It provides key facts, such as time and location, at a glance and in granular form.
# It emits metadata.
# It has a clear design. Gerda Arendt (talk)
# Customizable to individual articles
#Can be collapsed, though I personally think that feature is seldom needed
# Content determined by individual article consensus by editors
#Other genres of music and literature, as well as many biographies, use infoboxes, they are expected Montanabw(talk) 15:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Against infobox, but in favour of improving navbox with illustration relevant to the opera.
Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If Gerda thinks that the critical point of the current Arbcom case is how to determine consensus, I suppose voicing of concerns is called for. In short: I share Smerus'. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The side navbox is a terrible idea, totally useless and confusing.  Almost better to have nothing at all.  IF we are voting here, I must say the side navbox is a poor precedent to set. Montanabw(talk) 15:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Can't you all just learn to get along?  PumpkinSky talk 22:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be the day! Actually I would hope we can disagree without being disagreeable. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the infobox wars have been going on for years and now are the the subject of a very one-sided arb case, I'm not holding my breath.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky (talk • contribs) 02:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing [I mean the arb case] seems unnecessary to me, but then I haven't been around here as long as some other editors, so I don't have as much baggage to deal with. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get along 

message: I suggest to install the infobox as suggested above, without the duplication of "genre", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Replied Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, please let's have one discussion if we need one, - I don' think so. I like all Wagner's stageworks consistent, only completed what others began. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 

message: Substituted at 12:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment