This template falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
Opus33, despite your opinion, the removal of content from this template was highly abnormal. Regardless of how classical a topic is, even related pop culture content is to be included in the template as long as it is a derivative, adaptated or closely related subject. The template is for related subjects regardless of whether they are instructive.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, there is no policy on WP remotely like what you describe. On the other hand, there is a policy telling us not to overload the encyclopedia with trivia; i.e. WP:TRIVIA, and see also the guidance essay "In popular culture" content. I also have concerns about whether you have anything like the knowledge that would be helpful in making judgment calls about what counts as trivia in connection to a work of classical music. Your edit record at WP is almost entirely about models, actresses, TV shows, football players, popular movies -- I see no evidence that you know anything at all about classical music. Look: classical music is a hard field in which to exercise good editorial judgment, even if you do your best to read lots of books about it -- and that what I and many of the other classical music editors at WP do. In addition, the classical music editors participate in an active culture (attending concerts, listening to recordings, reading reviews) that gives them knowledge of what is likely to be important to WP readers who visit the classical music articles; and I would be rather surprised to hear that you participate in this culture. In sum, unless you have some relevant knowledge not evident in your editing record, I think it would be sensible and courteous of you to cease editing in this area. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opus33, I don't edit classical music in article space. I do edit that subject extensively in template space. In this regard, I have probably created more classical music templates than most of the classical music editors that you point to (see User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created scanning down to the "Biography (music)" and "Multimedia franchises (from operas/operettas)" sections). In fact, there are almost no editors who have created more multimedia franchise templates than me. However, I don't think your expertise or my expertise is what is relevant. What we disagree about is the purpose of the template. You think that a multimedia template is suppose to link to topics that are instructive about the main subject and I think that such templates are suppose to link to topics related to the main subject. E.g., while riding down the street and seeing a billboard for Sherlock Gnomes, I wondered whether it was properly accounted for in Sherlock Holmes templates. This is not a movie that will teach anyone about Sherlock Holmes, but is related. Whether the subject is an opera, a play, a novel, mythology or whatever, the links are to related articles. Note that WP:NAV discusses related articles rather than instructive articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What a ridiculous idea -- to think that there is some particular area of WP where the standards of scholarship are suspended. My diagnosis for what has happened is that, in the interests of your own enjoyment, you've made up your own rules and used them to heap trivia throughout the WP. Editors like you -- proud of their ignorance -- are a huge burden on WP. Opus33 (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are unclear on what is a ridiculous idea. Are you saying that using related as a standard when WP:NAV uses that term is ridiculous? Certainly WP:NAV is a better standard than any WP:OR policy you might coble together under the flag of "standards of scholarship". I am not using my own rules. WP is not a scholarly publication. In fact, it is largely influenced by the very pop culture that you deem irrelevant. I am going to take this to WP:3RR--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer to this difference of opinion is to have two templates – one with clear and strong connections to Mozart's opera, and used in those articles, and another which includes the tangentially related works and used in those articles.
Michael Bednarek, on one hand you talk about content being "unclear and unsourced" and on the other hand, you talk about being guided by the Category:Works based on The Magic Flute when categories are based on associations which are "unclear and unsourced". In general I base my templating decisions upon the content of the articles. I do not attempt to change that content or assess its propriety. That being said, I do concur that The Smurfs and the Magic Flute has no content that supports an association with the subject. The content of Magic Flute Diaries is a mess. The infobox suggests a strong association, while the prose suggests a far weaker connection. Again, I don't attempt to sway the content of the articles when templating. Although the prose association is weak, the infobox suggests a stronger connection and thus, for consistency sake (with all the other templates that I do) I would include it in the template. Of course, anyone is free to refine the article content to clarify the strength or weakness of the association. However, until the content is removed, I would leave this in the template. Regardless of whether the content at "Åh Amadeus" is sourced, I go by the content that exists and support it being in the template until the article is refined to show a lesser connection. The Magic Flute (musical) is also connected to the subject based upon the content of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that I template many subjects outside of my expertise. Thus, my policy is to assume that the content of the article is the result of some sort of consensus. If you want to go link by link and assess the content of the article at that link, it is a different standard than I have employed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly in agreement with Michael Bednarek here, certainly with respect to Åh Amadeus, Magic Flute Diaries, and The Smurfs and the Magic Flute. The first two very tangentially related articles should be added to Works inspired by The Magic Flute which appropriately belongs in the template. The completely unrelated Smurf case doesn't belong in either one. I also think it's valid to keep the two highly notable filmed versions of the opera in the template, and possibly the musical as well. And finally, this is an unobtrusive template at the very foot of the article which can be set to collapsed. To call this cluttering a classical article with ephemeral pop culture references is a gross exaggeration. None of this is in the article itself, which incidentally has a lengthy section which is virtually unreferenced, and might be an even more useful target for editorial zeal than this unobtrusive template. Just saying... Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four articles under discussion two remain at issue: "Åh Amadeus" and Magic Flute Diaries. My point is that my decision on what to include is based on what the article says (not what it should say). If the involved article editors are not interested making an article say what it should say, templating based on what the articles say is a way to encourage editors interested in the template to make the proper corrections to the article. Currently Magic Flute Diaries's infobox says the work and its music is derived from Mozart's original opera, although the prose suggests otherwise. I don't actually know which is correct although I would guess the prose is. However, unless the article is changed there is content in the article that supports a connection to the subject. No one seems to want to modify the article to clarify a minimal connection. They way to template effectively is to present navigational links based on the content of the articles and force editors to make the changes in order to support changing the template. Anything else is sort of taking the lazy way out. If the Magic Flute Diaries should not be connected to the opera, then the infobox should be changed. Once it is changed, then the article should be removed from the template and the template removed from the article. There are always issues with facts in articles. If you think a fact is problematic because of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYVIO, WP:ADVERT, WP:COI or whatever, you should change it. WRT "Åh Amadeus", Michael Bednarek questions the content "Song lyrics refer to . . . The Magic Flute" saying it is "unclear and unsourced" (in essence saying it is WP:OR). Lyrics referring to an opera is a lower order connection that lands the article in the "Related" section of a template. In my experience, removing articles from templates until proper factual connection is included in the content or including articles in templates until proper content is removed is a tool to encourage editors to take proper action on articles. As Michael Bednarek and Voceditenore suggest that we remove the articles from the template without correcting the articles to clarify the connection really makes it harder for template space editors to encourage the betterment of the encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Michael's comments. It is absurd to say that adding links to a template does not involve or require editorial judgement. Of course it does. It is irresponsible to run a search through Wikipedia, find all instances of "magic flute", add them to a template as "related" without making a minimal effort to verify that editorial assertion, and then absolve yourself of all responsibility when challenged. You need to carefully read the article being linked and if necessary do some further research and reading. In the Smurfs case, that simply involved reading the article itself, which was obviously not done. In the "Åh Amadeus" case, it involved checking the actual lyrics of the song which are widely available, running them through a translator and finding out that the phrase "magic flute" is only a fleeting reference (a process which took about 4 minutes). Common sense would tell you that Mozart was not the "writer" of Magic Flute Diaries (as erroneously asserted in the infobox). In fact, he wasn't the "writer" of The Magic Flute either. The words and story are by Emanuel Schikaneder. The screenplay of the film which incorporates some scenes from the opera and centers on the protagonist's obsession with it was written by Kevin Sullivan, a fact made abundantly clear on the film's official website. It has a somewhat stronger connection to the opera than "Åh Amadeus", but that's about all one can say. Incidentally, I have amended both those articles. Voceditenore (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore the process of creating the templates that I have did involve extensive editorial judgement. Each template took hours and hours of examining results that mentioned the subject. At no point did I merely include all articles that included the name of the subject. In terms of the Smurf article, I do not know what happened when I created the template over five years ago. It was some sort of human error. In terms of the other two articles, thanks for getting involved in Magic Flute Diaries. However, why did you leave the infobox content that says Mozart inspired the music? If you choose to remove that content, I concur that the link should be removed from the template. In terms of "Åh Amadeus", I am not sure what is meant by a fleeting reference. You say this is a repeated refrain. A fleeting reference is not something that extends throughout the song. I think of "Rapper's Delight" not belonging in the Superman template because he is mentioned as a theme in only one of many verses. As you have rewritten the "Åh Amadeus" article, I would argue that the Magic Flute is a continuing prevalent theme.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The infobox at Magic Flute Diaries doesn't say anything about "Mozart inspiring the music". It states that the sound track contains music by Mozart as well as other music by Peter Breiner which is true. If you actually watch the trailer, some of the music from The Magic Flute is simply used as background for scenes that have nothing to do with the opera. Other bits appear in brief excerpts from the opera being played out in the fevered imagination of the protagonist. If you seriously want to make a case for this being appropriate for the template, then do so. Don't make up nonsense about the infobox.
As for "Åh Amadeus", the singer repeats two times in a 220 word song that she's "hoping for the magic flute's magic" so that she can get her love back. Those are the sole (presumed) references to the opera in the entire song. The song is not about The Magic Flute. The opera is not a pervasive theme of the song. It is mentioned only in passing as the singer rabbits on about how Mozart must help her regain the "symphony" of her lost love. Unlike Magic Flute Diaries, the inclusion of that song in the template is wildly inappropriate and no amount of hair-splitting on your part changes that.
Finally, you claim that you did not add items to the template solely on the basis that they contained the words "magic flute". There can be no other explanation for this, this and this. None of those additions were "human error". They resulted from adding and in two cases re-adding articles which contained the phrase "magic flute" without even reading the articles or doing the minimum amount of checking. The ballet has zero to do with the opera and was by an entirely different composer. The Smurfs has zero to do with Mozart's opera. Ditto the Krishnavatara. It uses "The Magic Flute" as the title of one of its books because they are about the Indian god Krishna (who like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the Greek god Pan, and the Smurfs) also happened to have a "magic flute". Voceditenore (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am in favour of keeping the following contested items in the template:
Voceditenore, if you were around at WP:OPERA 5 years ago, you might recall that I constantly updated the project on the templates I had created so that they could look out for errors like those. In the case of the ballet, it is so rare that an article bears the title of a classical work disambiguated with (ballet) and is unrelated, that I did not check the content out of laziness. Typically, I started with a search like this and looked for content that could be included in a template. Blind inclusion of the phrase would have resulted in stuff like The Magic Flute of Herbie Mann being included in the template. I don't know what happened with Krishnavatara because usually unless the template subject is related to at least one-third of the article, I don't include it as related. With that many books, I don't understand why I included that one. This template is a odd example of my work, but editors are free to influence its content with their expertise and time.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
