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 articles
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 articles
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
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
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.
A strong case against Tony's view of what should be included is
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.--
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: "
WP:SEEALSO, editorial judgement is required to provide relevant links. Consensus here is to remove irrelevant links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
+1 to
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
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:
