Talk:Cosima Wagner

I propose to add this as the article's infobox. The infobox includes her birth and death place, neither of which are included in the lead paragraphs. The infobox also includes a list of her 5 children with links, which is not currently present in the article. I have also added a higher quality image of her portrait by Franz von Lenbach, and corrected the date. Shogeneral (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As per the previous discussions, this proposal does not seem like an improvement; it overemphasizes what is easy to summarize while minimizing what is actually key. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Which "actually key" facts are minimized? The first thing the article mentions about Cosima is that she was the daughter of Franz Liszt and the second wife of Richard Wagner, which are represented in the infobox. An "organisation = Bayreuth Festival" parameter could be added to represent her role in the festival (and I'm not opposed to adding it), but it would make the infobox longer and is not included in Richard Wagner's infobox. Shogeneral (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We could add |known for= Director of the Bayreuth Festival. Having dates and places together is standard for biographies in encyclopedias. Seeing her complex relations to some famous people of her era at a glance seems an improvement compared to having to collect the information from the prose. We could trim the exact beginnings and ends of her marriages, leaving those details to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If your goal is to allow people to see her complex relations at a glance, that would be better visualized with a proper family tree. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The only place I've seen family trees on Wikipedia is on pages of royalty, and in any case, there's no reason to put in a family tree facts that can be succinctly put in an infobox Shogeneral (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Shogeneral that the infobox presentation is more succinct than a family tree would be, and her parents didn't even form a "family". It would also come much later in the article, not seen at a glance, as it is in the articles of the other people mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Family trees are certainly used beyond royalty pages, and offer a more effective visualization of relationships compared to text-only presentations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

For a person coming to this article, it will suffice to know that she is connected to these people, and I trust that the parameters "spouses", "children" and "parents" are clear, leaving nothing to be desired visualized. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

For a person coming to this article, it will suffice to know that she is connected to these people is a rather reductionist perspective, and underlines the issue of prioritizing claims that are easy to present in data pairs.

If text is sufficiently clear, then let's just ensure the relevant details are included in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

As the suggestion pointed out, neither the places of birth and death are mentioned in the lead, nor any of her five notable children, and this is good. The lead should be concise, and the infobox should collect information that some readers want to find at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If details that are felt to be key are not included in the lead, again, let's edit the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead is fine as is. As mentioned, we must be mindful of maintaining a concise lead (trying to add a list of her children into the lead would probably be too awkward, anyway). The point is that an infobox summarizes basic facts in one place at a glance, which saves us the benefit of having a concise lead and saves the reader the trouble of finding information scattered throughout the article. Shogeneral (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The point is that if something doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead, it doesn't warrant being given even greater prominence. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE says "Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article", so adding birth and death places aren't warranted in the leads of most articles, but are almost always included in infoboxes. Shogeneral (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Birthplaces can be added to the lead, and children too, when relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Birthplaces aren't usually the reason a subject is notable. They're still basic facts that almost every infobox includes. Whether the lead should mention her birthplace is ultimately an irrelevant issue though, as infoboxes summarize info from the entire article, and thus a birthplace need not be warranted in the lead to be included. Shogeneral (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Whether the lead should mention her birthplace is ultimately an irrelevant issue though, as infoboxes summarize info from the entire article, and thus a birthplace need not be warranted in the lead to be included. Given that both are meant to summarize key information from the entire article, I don't see why the variation in content and emphasis between the lead and the proposal would be warranted - except that, as noted, some details are easier to convert to data. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The details that are easy to convert to data are the ones that should be summarized at a glance. Richard Wagner and Franz Liszt's leads do not mention their birthplace while their infoboxes do, so this isn't a significant variation. Shogeneral (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Converting details to data is the purpose of the Wikidata project; you'd be welcome to pursue that there. But here, what's easy to convert is irrelevant to what weight details should be given. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If a reader needs to go to Wikidata to get facts about a subject in an accessible manner, I'd consider that a failure on the Wikipedia article's part. Shogeneral (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting sending a reader there - a reader on this subject is provided a better summary via an appropriate, well-balanced lead rather than a collection of factoids, whether here or there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The infobox facts are nearly identical to facts presented in the lead, so they must not be a collection of “factoids”. The only differences are the inclusion of birth and death places, which is logical to include along with dates, and a list of her children, which follows a standard practice of linking notable children in an infobox. And, judging by the Mozart RfC and other RfCs, the average reader looking for essential facts is best served by an infobox. Shogeneral (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm really not sure how one could read past the opening parentheses and conclude that the facts presented in the lead are "nearly identical" to the proposal - while there is overlap, there is significant difference in both content and weight. Nor could an RfC on another article tell us anything about what serves a reader here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding a place of birth to an infobox doesn't give it any undue weight, as long as a date of birth isn't also considered undue weight. The central question is this: would the reader benefit by seeing basic biographical facts about Cosima Wagner at a glance? The answer is obviously yes, as even the lead takes multiple sentences before it gets to something that isn't a basic biographical fact. Shogeneral (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that that may be what you consider the central question and the answer. But I think limiting perspective in this way, much like the proposal, does a disservice to both the subject and the reader. After all, even the first paragraph of the lead tells us much more than just who she was related to, but also why that might matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Presenting basic facts in an infobox does not detract from complementary facts presented in prose. And even if Cosima's involvement in Bayreuth is considered so vitally important that even the most basic summary would be detracting without it, a more appropriate discussion would be whether this can be adequately represented in a parameter like "organisation" or "known_for" (I think it can). Shogeneral (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, you're welcome to your perspective on that matter. In my view, giving something like marriage dates such prominent positioning - or even giving that similar weight to something like "known for" - absolutely detracts (or distracts). These are not facts that are equally key. And without that "complementary" context, the "basic" facts are not particularly meaningful. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Having marriage dates matches the lead paragraphs, which so much brouhaha was made over earlier in the discussion. But, as I don't think it's necessary for an infobox to be an exact mirror of the lead, I'm willing to compromise: The infobox can be implemented without the marriage dates. Shogeneral (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The point made above was not that the proposal should include every claim from the lead, but rather that it should not include claims not warranting inclusion in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you please show a policy which states that every fact in an infobox must be warranted in the lead? And, as I mentioned, Richard Wagner, Franz Liszt, and a lot of other infoboxes (including composers) have birth places that aren't included in the lead, so those must be changed as well if such a policy exists. Shogeneral (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

As noted, both are meant to summarize the key details from the article - see MOS:INTRO and MOS:IBP. Given that and that the lead is more extensive, why would any claim not considered to merit inclusion in the lead be warranted in the proposal? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Birthplace is warranted because it's paired with birthdate in almost every infobox. A list of children is warranted because it gives the reader a concise overview along with links to her notable children. Shogeneral (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which parameters to use is determined at each individual article, not based on what other articles do.

As to children: a persistent, fundamental problem with this proposal is that rather than a summary of the subject, it's basically a textual family tree with an image thrown in. So if that's what's desired, let's just have a proper family tree (including links). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Other infoboxes shouldn't be the ultimate authority on what to do in an article's infobox, but, ceteris paribus, there's no reason to exclude what almost all other infoboxes have included. I think the reader would find an excluded birthplace really odd, and more distracting than the inclusion of any other proposed parameters.

A family tree would not be available at a glance, as the reader would have to go towards the end of the article to find it, and it would have to include figures not particularly relevant to Cosima, which would be clutter for a reader specifically trying to find Cosima's relations summarized. I, personally, think infobox parameters are clearer than a family tree even without extended relatives included. Shogeneral (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Your opposition seems to be based on assumptions rather than what was proposed - I specified neither a page-end position nor the inclusion of "figures not particularly relevant to Cosima". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

A family tree in the middle or lead of the article would be far more distracting than an infobox. Shogeneral (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Please show me one biographical article which includes a family tree in the lead. Shogeneral (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

See for example Sir William Talbot, 3rd Baronet - and that's larger than would be needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The inclusion of a truncated family tree (which has yet to be concretely proposed) would mislead the reader, e.g. not including Liszt's other children would mislead the reader into thinking that Cosima was his only child. An infobox can summarize relevant relations in a more visually concise manner, and is not at risk to misinterpretation. Shogeneral (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

The proposal would mislead the reader into thinking that there is nothing significant about the subject other than who she was related to. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The article introduces the subject with who she was related to. If it's misleading to prioritize those facts over her directory of the Bayreuth festival, I'd recommend you start with rewriting the lead. Shogeneral (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead does a much better job of summarizing the subject's accomplishments. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

An infobox doesn't take away the reader's ability to read the lead. Shogeneral (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Just for information. I mentioned this article in the requested arb case, and the discussion to S Marshall, which led to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Criteria for adding an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

While sports and politician bios and geographic or scientific articles can often benefit from infoboxes, the "factoids in a box" format is particularly unsuited to liberal arts articles such as this one, where the carefully written WP:LEAD section much more usefully presents and contextualizes the most important information about the subject. The proposed infobox misleadingly emphasizes less important factoids, stripped of context and lacking nuance, and competes with the excellent Lead section for attention at the top of the article, discouraging busy readers from reading through the Lead section. In addition, the key information about the subject that is included in the box is already discussed in the Lead and in the body of the article (and also appears in Wikidata), and so the box would contain a 3rd or 4th redundant mention of these facts. Nikkimaria has pointed out the particular problems with the suggested box that make it especially unsuitable. Her birth/death places and list of children are not among the most important things about this person, and anyone who glanced at the box and moved on would be badly misled and would never understand the accomplishments and controversy surrounding this interesting historical figure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Most liberal arts biographies have infoboxes, and they benefit from infoboxes as much as any other bio article does. Birth and death places are not "less important factoids" any more than dates of birth and death are, and are so ubiquitous in infoboxes that excluding them would be a distraction. An infobox which includes facts present in the lead isn't redundant, to quote the above discussion, "both [the lead and infobox] are meant to summarize key information from the entire article". Finally, a reader who wishes to "understand the accomplishments and controversy surrounding" Cosima is obviously looking for more than a summary, and can read the body of the article. Shogeneral (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the call for an infobox. After all, it's wiki-style, providing a general overview; it's reader-friendly. Not everyone dives into articles; some readers want key points... I don't see why this is being denied in this article. PaulasBunt (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the proposal doesn't provide "a general overview". It tells us about family (thus my suggestion for a family tree), but almost nothing about the subject herself. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

You're "occupaying" this CC BY-SA 4.0 article by rejecting the consensus for an infobox, and now you have started an edit war: 24 March 2026 + 26 March 2026 + 29 March 2026 (Edit war because in your edit-summary of infobox deletions (by 3 uninvolved users) you refer to Talk:Cosima Wagner, which has since 27 March a 3:2 (before a 2:2) vote in favour of an infobox.

Conclusion: Further discussion is pointless—it's been going on since 11 March—all arguments are on the table, but ultimately boiled down to a yes or no. It's a yes for the infobox, which you don't care about. This doesn't align with the wiki spirit as I understand it! PaulasBunt (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I think your understanding is inconsistent with the relevant policy. The only way to achieve the necessary consensus to include disputed content is through discussion - not by voting, and not by just throwing stuff in while not participating in discussion. It's also not just a "yes or no" - alternatives and amendments to the proposal need to be discussed as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion requires openness to the arguments of others, which currently seems to be lacking here. I wrote my post on March 27th after reading the entire thread. I see no reason to address your objection in a separate discussion, as I support the inclusion of an infobox and find your counter-argument incomprehensible.

Furthermore, you haven't weighed in on which specific information should be included in the infobox, though that is the only constructive way forward to avoid a simple yes/no vote.

The article on Cosima Wagner has been translated into several languages, such as Russian and Ukrainian. The latter includes an infobox + family tree, demonstrating that different editorial needs can be successfully integrated (additionally see the infobox of Friedrich Nietzsche; all is possible, also a "general overview").

Notably, almost all biographies on Wikipedia use a photograph rather than a painting. This feels more 'state of the art' and provides a more authentic insight into a bio. After all, this is an encyclopedia. PaulasBunt (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

What image the article should use is an entirely separate issue. If there's a specific photograph you'd like to propose, feel free to start a discussion about that - but based on a quick look at Commons, there might be issues with licensing.

As noted above, as it stands the proposal is essentially a badly formatted family tree. An infobox + family tree is an interesting possibility to discuss, perhaps using the identibox model - it would allow some of the less significant details like the list of children to be shifted. Marriage dates and places were also discussed above, and of course the caption would need to be removed, but more importantly, the proposal omits anything significant about the subject other than who she was related to - that remains a major problem, and one much harder to solve. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't checked the copyright issues regarding the photos, so my previous comment on that is irrelevant.

I don't understand why the family tree you favor should be included in the infobox. I have no opinion on the family tree itself, but would it enrich the article? Yes, in a way—however, this discussion is specifically about the infobox.

How Wagner's activities can be included there has already been suggested twice by different participants: via the fields 'Organization' or 'Known for'. I have no preference, as both are excellent ways to illustrate her work. In my opinion, this is not a serious or difficult problem to solve. PaulasBunt (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

PS: I checked the photos and fixed the only slightly copyright-unclear one from 1877; it is published by the Berlin Humboldt University under CC BY: Attribution 4.0 in the "Cosima Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain in Correspondence 1888-1908", page 39, mentioned by the uploader: PaulasBunt (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The solutions proposed by Shogeneral (Organization) or Gerda Arendt (Known for) are both excellent options for the infobox. They provide enough flexibility to reach a consensus, don't they? PaulasBunt (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why the family tree you favor should be included in the infobox. I don't argue that it should, quite the opposite. See example right - IMO much more appropriately balanced, although still not ideal. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My version has the locations of birth and death (a must for me in any biography), the festival (for which she was instrumental), and the children (five notable children say a lot in a biography). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Painting versus photography is a different topic that will be addressed later. (Occupation or known for... marriage dates... would have been nice, but if there's no consensus on that for some reason, that's fine too.) The infobox is now exactly as Shogeneral originally suggested, right? Good. PaulasBunt (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Not the same, I dropped marriage dates, but added known_for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I exchanged now the image in this example. While I'm neutral regarding which image, I want to show a photo option at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, substantially the same as originally suggested, still with major balance problems - so my initial comment still stands. I imagine the same is true for Ssilvers since their comments aren't addressed by it, but I will let them speak for themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I still have the same concerns and comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What are the "major balance problems" of this proposal? Shogeneral (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I just created an article on the lawyer who represented Cosima in the lawsuit against the Met. I hesitate to edit an FA article, but would appreciate finding a way to work him into the narrative on the Met lawsuit. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I've added a mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this sentance at the end of the Parsifal section is a bit miselading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosima_Wagner#cite_note-H140-85

This is the full quote they are sourcing in the Hilmes text as sourced in the article.

‘Frau Cosima Wagner is the only woman with any style whom I have ever got to know; but I blame her for corrupting Wagner. How did that come about? He had not “earned” such a wife: in gratitude he succumbed to her.’

While Nietzsche does state the words "I blame her for corrupting Wagner" claiming this is the case is misleading outside of context. Nietzsche was a great admirer of Cosima and potentially even in love with her. As this quote demonstrates the issue for Nietzsche is he did not think Wagner deserved Cosima. Rousshoe (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Given the rest of that page in the source, I'm not sure that interpretation is correct - the introduction to that quote is "Parsifal, for example, was an act of tastelessness for which he held Cosima personally responsible". That seems consistent with what the article says. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to propose using the photograph of Cosima Wagner (106 KB, 1877) as the lead image for this article, rather than the current painting.

My reasons are as follows:

• Authenticity: A photograph provides a more accurate and realistic depiction of the subject's appearance compared to a painting, which may contain artistic idealisation.
• Copyright Status: Concerns were raised regarding the copyright of the photographs on Commons. However, I have verified its status on Wikimedia Commons: CC BY: Attribution 4.0 by Humboldt University of Berlin. There are no legal barriers to its use.
• Manual of Style (MOS:IMAGE): According to Wikipedia guidelines, the lead image should be the most representative and identifiable depiction of the subject. A high-quality photograph usually fulfils this better than an artistic interpretation.
• Alt: (7.75 MB, 1911) Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universell by Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek

I am opening this discussion to reach a consensus. I look forward to hearing other editors' thoughts on which image serves the readers better. PaulasBunt (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)