Talk:Cosima Wagner

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Elsewhere being where? If it concerns this article, why not here? One example please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What has WP:MOSBIO to do with the infobox? I know that I made mistakes in the edit summary, and . 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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: , and I think it's a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Elsewhere being where? If it concerns this article, why not here? One example please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What has WP:MOSBIO to do with the infobox? I know that I made mistakes in the edit summary, and . 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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: , and I think it's a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Bravo! Good luck. Tim riley talk 17:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosima Wagner Diaries / George Steiner 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm going to bold and change it. Stronach (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of painting