![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest something like this, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
|name=
or |other_name=
– the template will do that. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Apologies Gerda, only just seen this. I don't think it very appropriate. Have removed it pending further discussion. I suggest that idf you are going to add these boxes as you have at other Wagner operas, you raise the issue first at WP:Opera and WP:Wagner.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a long standing tradition in WP for having "bibliographies" that may not necessarily equate to line references, variously listed by titles such as bibliographies or further reading. To remove all such sources, which editors presumably consulted, seems rather a purist approach. I would therefore reinstate these, if necessary, distinguishing those directly cited and those not, but that is a fluid situation, obviously. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There is actually another consideration. Unfortunately, there are many relatively good articles on WP which give a list of "sources", with vary few or no line references (non English WP is often worse, even at GA level), for which they are often tagged. Since we are supposed to assume good faith, I assume that the contributors faithfully reproduced the spitit of the sources they used but maybe lacked the requisite skills for adding line references. I think that is a more charitable interpretation than OR. In which case it would be a disservice to the article to erase them and thereby divorce text from source. It then falls to more obsessive editors like you and I to take those sources and attempt to link them to the text line by line! I think it is actually a bigger issue than even WP Opera, but since you raise it, yes it would be a good idea to have a much more standardised approach to opera articles, something that has bothered me for some time.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a WP:OR listing, with no evidence or citations, or definition of what 'noted' might mean; or indeed any indication of what its point or purpose might be. All the important items are already mentioned and described as appropriate in the newly-updated synopsis. I am therefore deleting it on the gorunds of cruft and repetition.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
For clarification, I have deliberately separated stage directions and kept the italics in the original, from my paraphrase of the ensuing actions and words.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Die Bühne stellt das Innere des Venusberges dar. Weite Grotte, welche sich im Hintergrunde durch eine Biegung nach rechts wie unabsehbar dahinzieht. Im fernsten sichtbaren Hintergrunde dehnt sich ein bläulicher See aus; in ihm erblickt man die badenden Gestalten von Najaden; auf seinen erhöhten Ufervorsprüngen sind Sirenen gelagert. Im äußersten Vordergrunde links liegt Venus auf einem Lager ausgestreckt, vor ihr halb kniend Tannhäuser, das Haupt in ihrem Schoße. Die ganze Grotte ist durch rosiges Licht erleuchtet. – Den Mittelgrund nimmt eine Gruppe tanzender Nymphen ein; auf etwas erhöhten Vorsprüngen an den Seiten der Grotte sind liebende Paare gelagert, von denen sich einzelne nach und nach in den Tanz der Nymphen mischen. – Ein Zug von Bacchantinnen kommt aus dem Hintergrunde in wildem Tanze dahergebraust; sie durchziehen mit trunkenen Gebärden die Gruppen der Nymphen und liebenden Paare, welche durch sie bald zu größerem Ungestüm hingerissen werden. – Dem immer wilder gewordenen Tanze antwortet wie im Echo der Gesang der Sirenen
What is in the synopsis in the article as it stands is rather different from this - e.g. there is no mention here of the rape of Europa. If you are going to cite extensively from Wagner's own stage directions, the citations should be clear and accurate and it would be helpful to differentiate them by enclosing them in quote marks (which would save the optical confusion of long passages in italics). You should also make clear what is Wagner's original, and what is the additions or interpretations of some other authority, of the stage directions.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The stage directions are paraphrases of those in my libretto, the one cited there, which are italicised in that edition. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have done some substantial work on this over the last week and it now looks more like a C than a Start. There is still a huge amount of work to do, eg thematic and musical analyses, relationships within Wagnerian canon. The literature is vast. However public interest has started to wane (at one point we had 3500 hits a day), so I will move on to other pressing projects for now. At the moment the issue as to whether bibliographies should contain 'Further Reading' or not is moot, since all entries are now incorporated into the article. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have our knickers in a twist about the bibliography. Firstly, it is better to separate by sources and then by additional reading (that is, if you can justify the additional reading, see discussion above). Take a look at the layout at Richard Wagner, which is a featured article. Secondly, don't confuse different editions. The crappy old (and incomplete) translation of Wagner's 'Mein Leben' online is quite different form the complate and more accurate translation by Andrew Gray which I included as a separate cite - recent editing seems to have confused these two editions. Please sort out.
Presenting readers with a huge list of texts, some of which have been cited in the article, and some of which haven't, is confusing for the reader and militates aginst the clarity which Wikipedia strives for. and sorting them on a WP:OR basis as 'Books by and about the Wagners', etc. is also not helpful. Any text which is listed and not cited should have a careful explanation as to why it is important/relevant. Leah Garrett's book for example is absolute rubbish and totally underserving of a mention. Our mission is to inform, not to overload with a ton of cruft. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tannhäuser (opera)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Translation of subtitle wrong
Lower end of the B spectrum. Some specific areas for improvement:
-- GuillaumeTell 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Upper Start class (54 points). Possible improvements:
-- Kleinzach 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 52/100 Upper start range. Unlike some of the other operas, there is some material covering each area of the marking scheme. However, this needs to be deepened as indicated below. A total of 60% is required to reach B-class, so the background and composition material is well up to that standard. The marking scheme and comments indicates where more marks could most easilly be picked up.
|
Last edited at 10:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The section presently headed 'Game Theory Analysis' had its title changed by me to 'Tannhäuser's motivations' - as its contents refer not only to games-theory but to Jungian interpretations. This has been reverted twice by an editor without explanation. I am referring the issue to WP:OPERA to seek other editors' opinions.-- Smerus ( talk) 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I gave a very clear explanation for my deletion. As long as the article does not include a section about interpretations, then having a single section highlighting just one such opinion is biased and incomplete. It looks as though one author wants to pimp their specific work, and is in no way objective. If there were a thorough section of critical analysis of the opera, then it might make sense, but as such, it's simply out of place. Kirkmc ( talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall the exact circumstances of its creation in Novemeber 2015, because I decided to move on rather than have two editors working on the page at the same time. I do recall that the sources had been on the page unused for a long time. I don't have any particular stake here. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I corrected the identification of this theme in the section on the Overture. The famous Pilgrim's Chorus used there is the one from Act 3, Scene 1, not to be confused with the hymn sung by the pilgrims in Act 1, Scene 3. -- Michael Snow ( talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! One short mention: the right full name of Tannhäuser is "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" without the second "der". This mistake is often done even in Germany because it sounds a bit strange missing the article at this place. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.89 ( talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Somebody more capable than me should correct the English "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger" - this entry has it as "The Singer's Contest" - that is not accurate. "Der Kampf der Sänger" more accurately translates to: "The Competition/Contest between Singers," or, at the very least "The Singers' Contest." What stands now has no lexical meaning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.157.248 ( talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions waldhorns (a German word) but the link is to the natural horn (Naturhorn in German). In the German Wikipedia these are two different instruments. Mebden ( talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The whole of the first act presents the goddess Venus as a sensuous temptress. In the third act, Wolfram sings an aria about the purity of the Evening Star, comparing it to the Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary. Wagner would surely have known that the Evening Star is the planet Venus. It would be OR to point that out in the article, but has no quotable expert ever pointed out that remarkable fact, and its significance, if any? -- Hugh7 ( talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Tavola 5,_bozzetto_di_Gebrüder_Brückner_per_Tannhäuser_(s.d.)_-_Archivio_Storico_Ricordi_ICON011721_-_Restoration,_crop.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru ( talk) 09:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Tannhäuser is an 1845 opera in three acts, with music and text by Richard Wagner. It is based on two German legends: Tannhäuser, the mythologized medieval German Minnesänger and poet, and the tale of the Wartburg song contest. The story centres on the struggle between sacred and profane love, as well as redemption through love, a theme running through most of Wagner's work. This undated set design for Act III of a production of Tannhäuser was produced by Max Brückner and his brother Gotthold, and printed by Otto Henning AG in Greiz. Set design credit: Max and Gotthold Brückner; restored by Adam Cuerden
Recently featured:
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest something like this, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 23:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
|name=
or |other_name=
– the template will do that. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 03:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Apologies Gerda, only just seen this. I don't think it very appropriate. Have removed it pending further discussion. I suggest that idf you are going to add these boxes as you have at other Wagner operas, you raise the issue first at WP:Opera and WP:Wagner.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a long standing tradition in WP for having "bibliographies" that may not necessarily equate to line references, variously listed by titles such as bibliographies or further reading. To remove all such sources, which editors presumably consulted, seems rather a purist approach. I would therefore reinstate these, if necessary, distinguishing those directly cited and those not, but that is a fluid situation, obviously. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
There is actually another consideration. Unfortunately, there are many relatively good articles on WP which give a list of "sources", with vary few or no line references (non English WP is often worse, even at GA level), for which they are often tagged. Since we are supposed to assume good faith, I assume that the contributors faithfully reproduced the spitit of the sources they used but maybe lacked the requisite skills for adding line references. I think that is a more charitable interpretation than OR. In which case it would be a disservice to the article to erase them and thereby divorce text from source. It then falls to more obsessive editors like you and I to take those sources and attempt to link them to the text line by line! I think it is actually a bigger issue than even WP Opera, but since you raise it, yes it would be a good idea to have a much more standardised approach to opera articles, something that has bothered me for some time.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a WP:OR listing, with no evidence or citations, or definition of what 'noted' might mean; or indeed any indication of what its point or purpose might be. All the important items are already mentioned and described as appropriate in the newly-updated synopsis. I am therefore deleting it on the gorunds of cruft and repetition.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
For clarification, I have deliberately separated stage directions and kept the italics in the original, from my paraphrase of the ensuing actions and words.-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 22:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Die Bühne stellt das Innere des Venusberges dar. Weite Grotte, welche sich im Hintergrunde durch eine Biegung nach rechts wie unabsehbar dahinzieht. Im fernsten sichtbaren Hintergrunde dehnt sich ein bläulicher See aus; in ihm erblickt man die badenden Gestalten von Najaden; auf seinen erhöhten Ufervorsprüngen sind Sirenen gelagert. Im äußersten Vordergrunde links liegt Venus auf einem Lager ausgestreckt, vor ihr halb kniend Tannhäuser, das Haupt in ihrem Schoße. Die ganze Grotte ist durch rosiges Licht erleuchtet. – Den Mittelgrund nimmt eine Gruppe tanzender Nymphen ein; auf etwas erhöhten Vorsprüngen an den Seiten der Grotte sind liebende Paare gelagert, von denen sich einzelne nach und nach in den Tanz der Nymphen mischen. – Ein Zug von Bacchantinnen kommt aus dem Hintergrunde in wildem Tanze dahergebraust; sie durchziehen mit trunkenen Gebärden die Gruppen der Nymphen und liebenden Paare, welche durch sie bald zu größerem Ungestüm hingerissen werden. – Dem immer wilder gewordenen Tanze antwortet wie im Echo der Gesang der Sirenen
What is in the synopsis in the article as it stands is rather different from this - e.g. there is no mention here of the rape of Europa. If you are going to cite extensively from Wagner's own stage directions, the citations should be clear and accurate and it would be helpful to differentiate them by enclosing them in quote marks (which would save the optical confusion of long passages in italics). You should also make clear what is Wagner's original, and what is the additions or interpretations of some other authority, of the stage directions.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The stage directions are paraphrases of those in my libretto, the one cited there, which are italicised in that edition. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I have done some substantial work on this over the last week and it now looks more like a C than a Start. There is still a huge amount of work to do, eg thematic and musical analyses, relationships within Wagnerian canon. The literature is vast. However public interest has started to wane (at one point we had 3500 hits a day), so I will move on to other pressing projects for now. At the moment the issue as to whether bibliographies should contain 'Further Reading' or not is moot, since all entries are now incorporated into the article. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have our knickers in a twist about the bibliography. Firstly, it is better to separate by sources and then by additional reading (that is, if you can justify the additional reading, see discussion above). Take a look at the layout at Richard Wagner, which is a featured article. Secondly, don't confuse different editions. The crappy old (and incomplete) translation of Wagner's 'Mein Leben' online is quite different form the complate and more accurate translation by Andrew Gray which I included as a separate cite - recent editing seems to have confused these two editions. Please sort out.
Presenting readers with a huge list of texts, some of which have been cited in the article, and some of which haven't, is confusing for the reader and militates aginst the clarity which Wikipedia strives for. and sorting them on a WP:OR basis as 'Books by and about the Wagners', etc. is also not helpful. Any text which is listed and not cited should have a careful explanation as to why it is important/relevant. Leah Garrett's book for example is absolute rubbish and totally underserving of a mention. Our mission is to inform, not to overload with a ton of cruft. Thanks, -- Smerus ( talk) 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tannhäuser (opera)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Translation of subtitle wrong
Lower end of the B spectrum. Some specific areas for improvement:
-- GuillaumeTell 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Upper Start class (54 points). Possible improvements:
-- Kleinzach 01:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 52/100 Upper start range. Unlike some of the other operas, there is some material covering each area of the marking scheme. However, this needs to be deepened as indicated below. A total of 60% is required to reach B-class, so the background and composition material is well up to that standard. The marking scheme and comments indicates where more marks could most easilly be picked up.
|
Last edited at 10:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 07:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The section presently headed 'Game Theory Analysis' had its title changed by me to 'Tannhäuser's motivations' - as its contents refer not only to games-theory but to Jungian interpretations. This has been reverted twice by an editor without explanation. I am referring the issue to WP:OPERA to seek other editors' opinions.-- Smerus ( talk) 12:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I gave a very clear explanation for my deletion. As long as the article does not include a section about interpretations, then having a single section highlighting just one such opinion is biased and incomplete. It looks as though one author wants to pimp their specific work, and is in no way objective. If there were a thorough section of critical analysis of the opera, then it might make sense, but as such, it's simply out of place. Kirkmc ( talk) 05:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall the exact circumstances of its creation in Novemeber 2015, because I decided to move on rather than have two editors working on the page at the same time. I do recall that the sources had been on the page unused for a long time. I don't have any particular stake here. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I corrected the identification of this theme in the section on the Overture. The famous Pilgrim's Chorus used there is the one from Act 3, Scene 1, not to be confused with the hymn sung by the pilgrims in Act 1, Scene 3. -- Michael Snow ( talk) 00:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! One short mention: the right full name of Tannhäuser is "Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg" without the second "der". This mistake is often done even in Germany because it sounds a bit strange missing the article at this place. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.89 ( talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Somebody more capable than me should correct the English "translation" of "Der Kampf der Sänger" - this entry has it as "The Singer's Contest" - that is not accurate. "Der Kampf der Sänger" more accurately translates to: "The Competition/Contest between Singers," or, at the very least "The Singers' Contest." What stands now has no lexical meaning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.157.248 ( talk) 17:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The article mentions waldhorns (a German word) but the link is to the natural horn (Naturhorn in German). In the German Wikipedia these are two different instruments. Mebden ( talk) 16:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The whole of the first act presents the goddess Venus as a sensuous temptress. In the third act, Wolfram sings an aria about the purity of the Evening Star, comparing it to the Elizabeth and the Virgin Mary. Wagner would surely have known that the Evening Star is the planet Venus. It would be OR to point that out in the article, but has no quotable expert ever pointed out that remarkable fact, and its significance, if any? -- Hugh7 ( talk) 03:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Tavola 5,_bozzetto_di_Gebrüder_Brückner_per_Tannhäuser_(s.d.)_-_Archivio_Storico_Ricordi_ICON011721_-_Restoration,_crop.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 19, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-19. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru ( talk) 09:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Tannhäuser is an 1845 opera in three acts, with music and text by Richard Wagner. It is based on two German legends: Tannhäuser, the mythologized medieval German Minnesänger and poet, and the tale of the Wartburg song contest. The story centres on the struggle between sacred and profane love, as well as redemption through love, a theme running through most of Wagner's work. This undated set design for Act III of a production of Tannhäuser was produced by Max Brückner and his brother Gotthold, and printed by Otto Henning AG in Greiz. Set design credit: Max and Gotthold Brückner; restored by Adam Cuerden
Recently featured:
|