This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
I've added us to their newsletter subscription list. I believe they will only come out occasionally and some members might find them useful. If it starts getting to be too much, we can always unsubscribe. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Now, I've tided the existing two sections which comes under the the "References" sections -i.e "Notes" and "Cited sources". I would hope that we do not need to re-visit the long discussions from 2011; we seems to have set up an acceptable layout which looks a lot better than a long series sub-sections.
However: at the same time, we have two slightly different layout formats, and - in my opinion- we ought to only have one which expresses the ultimate aim of reaching the GA+ status.
We most certainly should not "stick to our guns and retain what we have". As I explained when making the change, the current recommendations create accessibility problems, and are contrary to the guidance of both MOS:ACCESS and MOS:LAYOUT. A concern about having many subsections can be addressed by limiting the TOC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this about having separate sections for "References" and "Sources"? That's the way I've always formatted my articles. Some opera editors decided to merge the two together using semicolons and it looks a total mess to me. I don't remember any consultation over the issue. --Folantin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There was no substantial discussion when they were originally changed in July 2011. I pointed this out at the time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats (a page with very few watchers). They were changed after a 2-day discussion by 2 members and one non-member with no discussion here on the Project's main talk page not even a notice that they had been proposed there. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 104#Changes to referencing guidelines. I was away for all of August, and they just ended up staying there, with many, many articles subsequently altered to "conform" to the new guideline mostly by the editors who had changed it. Nikkimaria is absolutely correct that the use of faux headings either via bolding or semi-colon is contrary to the accessibility guidelines. On the other hand, TOC limit has limited value for keeping multiple level 3 headings from bloating the TOC. It suppresses all level 3 headings and there many other level 3 headings in an article which are actually needed in the TOC. Like Folantin, I see nothing wrong with what we had before the guidelines were changed. That is, a level 2 section for the footnotes/inline citations titled "References" and another level 2 labeled "Sources" (necessary when using Shortened footnotes). I find these sub-divisions into Cited sources and Other sources confusing, messy, and quite contrary to MOS:LAYOUT. So yes, we do need to re-visit those 2011 discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
There is definitely evidence that the use of a semicolon to bold a pseudo heading causes problems for those using screen readers, but that seems to have been rather conflated with the use of standard bold markup using ''' for pseudo headers ( a very widespread practice on Wikipedia). I'd like to see evidence that standard bold marking causes the same issues. I'll ask Graham87 who edits using a screen reader if it indeed does. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Another relevant point is how these "guidelines" get changed and then appear to be writ in stone and stemming from widespread consensus. In my experience, they rarely are. For example, the injunction against using both the semicolon and the standard bold marking for pseudo headers, and in fact, an injunction against pseudo headers per se, was unilaterally added to MOS:ACCESS by one editor in June 2012 [1]. When they later had doubts and asked for comment, only one other editor replied, to the effect that a standard bolded topic heading can actually help dyslexic readers keep track of the text and would not affect those using screen readers. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#Headings: avoid pseudo-headings. Nevertheless, the guideline remained with only a minor change from "never" to "do not". Then 3 days ago, Nikkimaria changed the guideline at MOS:LAYOUT[2] to "match" the one at MOS:ACCESS after a brief discussion with only one other editor, thus perpetuating an assertion for which no clear, independent evidence has ever been provided. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. So it seems there are two issues to discuss about this guideline. The first is the method used to create subsections (bold or real headings) - it would seem that real headings should be recommended, but bolded permitted. The second is what the subsections should be - Voceditenore's comment above suggests that we should not be requiring that either "Cited sources" or "Other sources" be subsections, while MOS:LAYOUT has what we are calling "Other sources" as a separate level-2 section titled "Further reading". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: "Further reading" is not the same as "Sources", cited or otherwise. "Further reading" is recommended additional reading material that was not directly used as a source in writing the wiki article [ETA: it can also include lengthy book sources which may have been used as citations but perhaps not exhaustively, and further delving into the book would be useful for the curious reader]. "Other sources" = sources used to create the wiki article, but not cited as specific footnotes. To recapitulate, "Other sources" is not the same as "Further reading". All sources used in writing the wiki article must be listed as sources. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
All sources used must be listed, but as written the guideline presents "Other sources" as those "which, if consulted, would provide further information" - this seems to me to be closer to Further reading than a general references section. If that isn't what was intended, we should clarify that as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Source means source. If it wasn't a source for the article, then it should not be labeled "source". "Further reading" consists of, or at the very least includes, items which were not used at all in writing the wiki article (and in fact have very little crossover with the article), and therefore a "Further reading" list should never be confused with a "source" list and never labeled as a "source" list. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Could we have a sample opera article with a maximum number of ref/notes/etc headers and subheaders, and also one or more sample(s) Featured Article(s) (non-opera) with a maximum number of such ref/notes/etc headers and subheaders, so we can compare them? I think this would be very instructive. Speaking in abstract is fine, but comparing actual articles with actual implementation of these various formats is much more instructive. Personally, I would like Opera articles to conform to the rest of Wikipedia, unless there is some excellent reason why they shouldn't. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Format samples and further discussion
Hi Softlavender. Good suggestion. Here are some Featured articles for comparison with various permutations on the use of pseudo headers, Level 2 headers, Level 3 headers, etc. As you can see the titles and contents of the headers (whatever their form) also vary considerably. I'm sure there are other permutations, but I stopped after 4 each.
FA opera articles
Carmen has one Level 2 section (== ==) titled References with 3 sub-divisions marked by bolded pseudo headers: Notes (parenthetical information), Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
Jules Massenet has one Level 2 section titled Notes, references and sources with 3 sub-divisions marked by level 3 headers (=== ===): Notes (parenthetical information), Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
Rinaldo (opera) is now similar to Carmen, but on 17 February 2011 (when it was made an FA), it had two undivided Level 2 sections: Notes and references (both parenthetical information and inline citations in shortened form) and Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Notes and references").
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky has three undivided Level 2 sections: Notes (parenthetical information), References (inline citations), and Sources full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "References).
FA non-opera articles
Tichborne case has one Level 2 section (== ==) titled References with 3 sub-divisions marked by bolded pseudo headers: Notes (parenthetical information), Citations (inline citations in shortened form), Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing "Citations").
Elvis Presley has one Level 2 section titled References with 2 sub-divisions marked by level 3 headers (=== ===): Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
New Forest pony has two undivided Level 2 sections: References (containing both parenthetical information and inline citations in shortened form) and Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "References")
HMS Warrior (1860) has three undivided Level 2 sections: Notes (parenthetical information), References (inline citations in shortened form), Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing "References").
Well, I'm quite happy with the format as we have it now, FA's not withstanding. As I recall in 2011, there was quite a bit of discussion until someone in the Project came up with the rather concise and simple layout which we now have. Viva-Verdi (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm in favor of using standard wiki formatting. In my mind there is not and never was any reason to go against the grain. The only time or place that I think it makes sense to use semicolons is in External Links, if they need to be subdivided, because they aren't part of the article and thus don't really need a presence in the TOC. (And conversely, it is good and important in my mind for things like "Further reading" "Bibliography" or "Sources" to show up in the TOC.) As Voceditenore mentions up above, there never was a discussion about this idiosyncratic change; there was just Kleinzach making a suggestion and two people agreeing. That's not sufficient cause in my mind for a major WikiProject with hundreds or thousands of articles to unilaterally change its style guide contrary to Wikipedia standards and all other WikiProjects. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I note that Carmen reached featured article status and uses the bolded subheadings in the References section. In fact, I seem to remember that this format has been used in many featured articles, which is how I originally got the idea of using it. I don't see that the MOS is the final word on this issue. I still favor using them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to combining all sources under one heading as simply "Sources" - and removing the distinction from the guidelines. Viva-Verdi (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The Carmen article demonstrates that combining three kinds of references (notes, footnotes, sources) would be, IMO, impractical. Now that bolding by semicolon is strongly discouraged, I have the impression that bolded subdivisions become more widespread even outside classical music and opera articles. Are they following WP:WPO and WP:CM? Or is it the zeitgeist? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Michael, I think Viva-Verdi was referring to removing the current distinction in the guidelines between Cited sources and Other sources and simply having a Sources pseudo-heading. Viva, have I read your comment correctly? If so, I am strongly in favour of that. Michael, I suspect the use of pseudo-headings in references sections is the zeitgeist (possibly originating from a now-banned editor who used to do a lot of stuff with FAs) rather than stemming from our guidelines. There's even a template for it (Template:Fake heading) which has been around for about 4 years. There are about 50 articles that use it, but most use the ''' ''' markup instead. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, I do mean that we remove "Cited sources" and "Other sources" and simply have all under "Sources". Viva-Verdi (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: Based on the most recent comments, I have tweaked the guidelines to remove the distinction between Cited sources and Other sources. I've also added a link there to this discussion, mentioning that it contains examples of other referencing layouts used in opera-related FAs which may be more suitable depending on the circumstances. I don't think this aspect of formatting benefits from further micro-management. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...
Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.
We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:
"Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
"I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
"In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik
Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.
We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)
While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.
Project members will be particularly interested in this contribution to the ProjectX talkpage. The implication of some editors clearly being that WPOpera is a 'bad project'. The editor making the initial comment may be known to some WPOpera members. I was not aware from Harej's comments, which seem to me to be implicitly useful and sound, that there was some potential of ProjectX turning into a moral crusade.--Smerus (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a project member (again) and was welcomed back: "The OP doesn't have exit or entrance requirements", - what gives you the idea that Opera is meant at all, and you even say "clearly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Gerda, if you look at the thread (which I see is now closed) you will see that it was not I who suggested that the comments turned on projects and infoboxes, but that it was User:Choess and User:Snow Rise who 'gave me [and other readers of the thread] the idea'. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Um... Harej closed that thread as unproductive and rightly so. It was quite contrary to the goals of WikiProject X. Why are we rehashing it here? Enuf said... Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Spam links to classicistranieri.com
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Be on the lookout for these. They've been added to many opera and opera-related articles. This ad-filled Italian site simply downloads material found on archive.org, Project Gutenberg, WikiSource, or Commons and passes it off as their own. Links often go to recordings which are claimed to be licensed under creative commons but many are copyright infringements, in the US at least. Others go to mirrors of pages on Project Gutenberg. Example which I removed from Rigoletto today. You can get a list of the WP articles currently linking to this site here. – Voceditenore (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Andy. I've reported it there today. I had reported it at WikiProject Spam back in 2013, but got no response—probably because the spammers are always changing their IP (although all geolocate to the same area of Italy). WikiProject Spam seems to deal with spamming editors rather than the stuff they spam. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Spam from profsonstage.com
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hopefully, I've nipped this in the bud, but watch out for cite spam for profsonstage.com, which is not a reliable source. I've repaired all the additions so far (the editor's sole contributions). In two cases the link did not support the assertion at all. In two more the reference was superfluous to existing references from much better sources, and in the remaining two I replaced it with a proper reference, although an inline cite was probably not even strictly required. Voceditenore (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Problems with voice type articles and a potential solution
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
I'm starting a discussion here because it applies to multiple articles—Tenor, Soprano, Contralto, Baritone, Bass-baritone, etc. These are not intended to be "Lists of X" articles. By including the names of singers we encounter at least three major problems:
The lists are potentially enormous and unwieldy, and anything approaching limiting them to "Notable" or "Prominent" is pointless. Everyone thinks "their" singer is notable and prominent, right up there with Caruso, Callas, Chaliapin, etc.
The sub-classification of singers is very problematic, approaching the ridiculous. Most singers cannot be shoe-horned this way, and indeed have fit into different classifications depending on the stages of their careers or concurrently sing roles in multiple sub-classifications. Domingo is a classic example of this.
I propose taking Bass as a model. It lists only examples of roles written for that voice type (and its sub-classifications). We remove all names of singers from the rest of these articles. At most we could list the singer who created each of those roles, but even that probably isn't necessary. What do other members think? Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: add Alto, no singers there, but some more explanation would be nice, vs. contralto, use in church and concert music, sung by boys, men and women --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Dissent It's one thing to say Fach categorizes roles; any given singer can do more than one. I can't see an article starting "Chaliapin was a singer of bass, baritone and occasionally tenor roles", however, and imo voice type articles benefit from well chosen examples of singers. The role lists can also get a bit crufty. Sparafucil (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Back
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Gerda. Happy New Year to you too! I was flying off to deepest darkest Tuscany the day you wrote this and didn't see it 'til now. Anyhow, just go ahead and sign on, The OP doesn't have exit or entrance requirements . Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Done, thank you (I didn't even wait). Lovely new baritone article on that Don Giovanni. From deepest La Gomera (with a slow line), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Articles needing translation from German?
Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
When I used to be active here (2007-2010?) there was a list of articles for opera-related articles where there was a German article but no corresponding English article. I may be looking in the wrong place (likely, given I've been on a 5-year Wikibreak!), but I can't see it any more? I'd like to help with some translation but need a to-do list to work from. Happy to take requests directly (here or on my talk page). Cricketgirl (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cricketgirl. Thanks so much! I don't remember seeing a list like that, but it may have been before my time here. I did a cursory search through the project's talk archives and couldn't find anything either (although it may be there somewhere). Anyhow, to get you started, I've listed 4 red links from The opera corpus which have German WP articles:
Thanks! I've started on the first one and will copy it all in from my sandbox when it's finished. Others - please feel free to add to this list! Cricketgirl (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear Cricketgirl, you might some time like to take a look at de:Semiramide riconosciuta which has masses of detail not in the English article, which anyway treats the topic as if it were only a matter of Porpora's setting. And Gluck's is confusingly listed in English WP under La Semiramide riconosciuta. And there's nothing in English WP of all the other settings. So there's a whole lot of sorting out to do, for which I think translation of the German article might be a necessary starting point. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a way of doing it as there is a general list of pages needing translation (can't find the link now, stupidly removed it from my desk), but it wasn't project specific. Cricketgirl (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Operas of the month
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've just gone across to the German version for each of these and pulled the premiere date and theatre in each case over to the lead section of the English article. There wasn't an exact date for Idomeneo but I did all the others. Loath to take the box off the front page! but wanted to say I've done it in case the Grand Maestro of this Wikiproject (should there be such a person) wanted to update the box on the project page? As ever, humbly a servant of WP:OPERA, Cricketgirl (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cricketgirl. Thanks so much for that! I've marked them all as "done". Feel free to do that in future months if it arises. The "X of the Month" boxes are transcluded on the main project page and are separately editable. (See the edit · history · watch · refresh links at the top of each box.) It's better to mark each item as done rather than remove it from the box. Otherwise we don't have a clear record of what each XoM was. The archive of past ones dating back to 2006 is here. I ended up as the "Grand Maestra" of the XoM boxes sort of by default, but anyone can suggest future ones. You'll find the forms for the next three months at the top of this talk page just of above the Table of Contents in the band marked Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A reviewer of Kullervo (Sallinen) is concerned about to close similarity of the synopsis to the source. Any volunteer for a rewrite? I (DYK nominator) don't have time right now, and the author didn't react in a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware that there were copyright problems with the synopsis I had put in that article, using New Grove Opera 1997 plus the two Opera reviews referenced, but also looking at the Frankfurt Opera page which looked like a reasonably reliable source. I should say that it is often very difficult to rephrase a synopsis; if you change the words round in source A they can easily become identical to source B, and if you merge A and B you find that you have ended up too close to source C. Thank you nonetheless for the improvement (and completion) of the synopsis.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
New templates
Latest comment: 9 years ago41 comments6 people in discussion
I will be creating a bunch of templates that are part of this project. They are way outside of my comfort zone, so I will let you guys know about them so that you can correct them if you wish.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"should this template be renamed 'Jerusalem Delivered'?" Definitely (or Gerusalemme liberata). For instance, "Tancredi e Clorinda" does not contain the characters Rinaldo and Armida. --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger:, I feel you are really pushing matters on {{Così fan tutte}} - none of the three operas you mention there has anything but the most remote or tangential connection with Così (Sharing a singer? - quoting a bit of a tune?.....) They are certainly not related to, or connected to, Così in any commonly understood sense. --Smerus (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)-
Hi Tony, I glanced at this one, and I have to strongly object to having a porn film in a navbox on a well-known Mozart opera that lots of people are going to click on. I have nothing against porn, but porn should not be in an opera navbox. The film The Mouth Agape does not belong either in my opinion; many films use snippets of opera here and there, and per the citation this does not sound anything but small and routine use. You are a great template creator, and I applaud your effort to and interest in creating opera navboxes, however I think you are casting far too wide a net in your zeal to fill them, or at least this one, out. It might be more productive to ask of the opera group which operas have related articles or spin-offs and could use a navbox but don't currently have one. Unfortunately, the ones that come to my mind right now already either have one or one on their source material. Since major operas are often based on well-known source material (however transformed), it's hard (for me at least) to come up with any ideas at present for operas which could fill out a navbox but don't already have one. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I know the opera crowd is a very highbrow group, but I base my template creation on whether I can find at least 4 related links. If the lowbrow links exist I include them with the same priority as the highbrow links. I have used the same filters to generate templates for opera as I have in the past. Admittedly, I have never seen a link where the only two films were so bawdy. I am not sure that people interested in this topic would be uninterested in the operas that are linked, but these templates are work in progress that anyone can edit. I think all inclusions are of similar relevance to inclusions on the other templates that I have created. I am not sure how to indicate that the operas are not actually adaptations as might be expected. I do believe that they are related although not adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger:, thanks for this. It's not a question of being 'highbrow', but a question of whether the items in the template add value to anyone's understanding of the template header topic. The existence of a wikilink doesn't establish value. I am therefore taking your licence to edit by removing the three operas and the film The Mouth Agape from the Così template. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Smerus, there is a two directional aspect to each link in the template. Note that the template is transcluded on most of the links and there is the question of whether the inclusion of the questioned items in the template and its transclusion improves the understanding of the subjects of the links. I think you may have been a bit quick on the draw to completely remove the content that you did. It might have been better to rearrange the template so that the operas were moved into the related section. The complete removal is very inconsistent with the templating that I have done in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the primary topic (the original novel) should have a link within the template (in addition to being wikilinked in the header). If that constitutes a redundancy, I'd say leave the header unlinked and shorten it to "The Vampyre", and place the novel link in the body of the template. As it is, the reader seemingly has to search on his own or work to figure out the existence of the source novel, and that it is a novel as opposed to some other kind of work or production. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
My confusion sprang from your posting this one in Wikiproject:Opera after having said you were creating opera templates and posting them here for review. Now that you've explained, the format of this one on the source-material makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not incredibly fussed about the ballets category being accessible through the opera category tree. It can also be made accessible through the ballets category tree, if it isn't already. I don't agree that "Operas premiered in Townname" is necessary, as that's rarely a useful subject for categorization, while being able to see a category of operas premiered at X theatre is actually pretty significant for the theatre. But I wouldn't have an issue with renaming to "Operas premiered at Theatrename". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've recategorised the Paris ballets. But what about these further problems with "Operas premiered at Theatrename"? 1) "Theatrename" by itself may not mean much to the uninitiated. Members of WP:OPERA may (?) know that 'La Monnaie' is in Brussels, 'Teatro San Carlo' is in Naples, 'Burgtheater' is in Vienna - not so easy for others. 2) "Theatrename" in the present categories may not always conform to WP articles - I haven't checked them all, but e.g. the WP article 'Covent Garden' (correctly) deals with the area of London of that name. The opera house article is Royal Opera House. 3) But then again "Theatrename" may be misleading. Most operas listed presently as having 'Covent Garden world premieres' had premieres at the Covent Garden Theatre, which may have been the theatre building preceding the present Royal Opera House, or the present building when it was still called 'Covent Garden Theatre'. Others may have had their premieres in the present building when it was named 'Royal Opera House' after 1946. Although Covent Garden Theatre segues to Royal Opera House, shouldn't we separate operas premiered there according to the name of the theatre at the time of the premiere?--Smerus (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Hello! I am writing my first opera article - about Menotti's La Loca. I think I have it mostly in shape but I have a couple of questions, about that table where we list the cast of the premiere. The article is at User:MelanieN/La Loca.
Should I leave as redlinks the cast members who do not have Wikipedia articles, or should I unlink them?
I was unable to find the vocal parts for the various characters, although I have the names of the performers. This is kind of an obscure opera and I was not able to find the information. Should I just leave the vocal parts blank, or does someone here at WikiProject Opera have access to sources that I do not?
Thank you, looks interesting. I would leave as red links those singers for whom you expect an article to be written, - not the ladies in waiting I would think. I would try to move details from the lead to a paragraph about composition history, and the line about three parts sung by one baritone from the synopsis. Happy singing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at part of the program which lacked the cast list, but had the singers's credits. So I based it on that. But the woman who played Catalina was not listed. kosboot (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK, there isn't any such barnstar - but there should be. You folks are awesome. I came here needing help in an unfamiliar area, and within hours, FOUR of you answered my questions and improved my article. This is Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive. 0;-D Quite the contrary. Wikipedia would collapse if it weren't for people who are passionate about things. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Can anyone answer the new question on the Balfe talk page (that is, how many operas did Balfe actually write)? Thanks for any help or input. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I've also commented there, Ssilvers. But frankly, given that Aklein62 has copy of Basil Walsh's 2008 biography of Balfe (Irish Academic Press) which lists 29 + one or two lost, and the current 38 seems to have been literally pulled out of nowhere and appears only on WP or its mirrors, I see no reason not to change it. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Lost operas?
Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
Is there a WP article/list of operas which are known to have existed but are lost? (I'm posting a related query to WP:Classm). kosboot (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
1157? Yikes! :) A list + text might be the way to go. Perhaps limiting it at first to "lost operas" for which we have a reliable source about their performance? Some "lost operas" still have a surviving libretto. It might also be a good idea to have some sort of internal organization, perhaps by century, composer, or genre. Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
If there's some interest in continuing with this idea, it would probably take no more than a couple of hours to vacuum the OperaGlass pages, dump the '[lost]' lines into a rough and sortable wikitable, and wrap the composer surnames in double brackets ... If someone will commit to taking it from there, I can do the initial stuff. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but a list of almost 1200 works is way too unwieldy for a single page. It would need to be broken up over several pages. Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OperaGlass is not an official part of Stanford University, ahimè. The webmaster Rick Bogart is on the Stanford staff but somewhere in astrophysics.
The backbone of the site seems to be the worklists from Grove, but with some extensions by contributors (mostly from the Opera-L listserv) in the mid/late 90's. OperaGlass includes, for instance, the content of Chris Hapka's USOpera.com site.
The site has had a few scattered updates in recent years, with the pages for anniversaries last updated in 2012. This should not be a problem, as very few operas have been lost in the 21st century -- Silvio Barbato's Simón Bolívar being a possible exception. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Bravo Scarabocchio. How should such a list be broken up? My feeling is that "by century" would be the best format. Many 17th-18th operas have more than a single composer (making a "by composer" listing problematic), and the boundaries of traditional periods (baroque, classical, romantic, etc.) are fluid, making a list by "compositional era" somewhat subjective. kosboot (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kosboot:, @Voceditenore:, there's a purely technical reason for favouring a grouping by composer -- in any other order, the composer's name must be repeated for each lost work. I can't see anyone consulting this list alphabetically, so perhaps some sort of chronological list of composers, sub-divided by time period if needed? Scarabocchio (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Last year I had to inventory a collection of 1,000 Italian opera librettos. You would be surprised how many operas have multiple composers. How would you propose dealing with such operas without privileging one composer over another? kosboot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
*I* don't propose to do anything about it! :-) Decide how you think that the data in this list will be used, tell me what you would like to see, and I will see what I can do to get you towards your target. Easy stuff: add the composer name to the end of each work line; add the first four-digit number (hopefully the year) to the start of a work line; sort the result. Hard stuff (over to you!): handle works with no dates at all, works with no title, works with multiple composers.
I'm happy to take it as far as I can with text tools, but I not a fan (nor user) of lists (or categories), so when it starts to need manual editing and human decision making, I'll hand it over.
Thanks for all the work you've done so far on this. I'd like to play around and see what looks/works best, but I have a project I have to finish up so I probably won't get to this until Thursday or later. If anyone else interested wants to do something.... ;) kosboot (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Whilst copyediting the Peter Moores page to help refute the allegation that 'he hadn't done anything for 10 years', I found to my suprise that there is no WP article for Amanda Roocroft (who gained one of the PM Foundation scholarships). Just saying.--Smerus (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Smerus! Buoyed by the sugar-rush from your cookie, I created an article for Roocroft's teacher, Barbara Robotham. I'm now going back to my wacky 18th century librettist, who took to the trade only after he got caught embezzling from a bank in Naples and had to leg it to Venice. Much more exciting than the polite goings-on at the Royal Northern College of Music. Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Vdt, you set a good example to us all. I must make progress on my draft article on Wagner's shady acquaintance who produced the first, largely imaginary, English biography of the composer. But, in the meantime, was your librettist as wicked as this harpist? Perhaps we should start Category:Musical criminals?--Smerus (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Lohengrin
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The dab bot informed me that Wagner's work is no longer Lohengrin (opera) but Lohengrin (Wagner), and the former not even a redirect. I think that no redirect is a mistake, because in 100% of historic cases, Wagner's work was meant (links in archives are broken), and in estimated 90+% in the future, Wagner's will be meant. I vote for a redirect from opera to Wagner, not to disambiguation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You guys should have warned me, when I came here looking for help with La Loca, that writing about opera can be habit forming. I now have a couple of drafts where I would appreciate any advice or help you care to give - editing, style, places to look for references, a more appropriate infobox, etc. Even though these drafts are in my userspace, please feel free to edit them.
User:MelanieN/David Bennett (opera director) This is about the new general director of the San Diego Opera. I think it is almost ready for mainspace, unless you think there might be problems with notability - since he had very little coverage prior to the announcement of his appointment to San Diego. Also, is that the best title?
User:MelanieN/Michele Mariotti This article about the young conductor Michele Mariotti is probably not ready for prime time. I have found very little Reliable Source information and I think I'm going to have to incubate this one for a while and wait for him to become better known. But if you folks think I should go ahead with what I have, I will.
Hi Melanie. Of the two, Mariotti is actually far`more notable, not only as Chief Conductor of the Teatro Comunale di Bologna (and conducting in multiple other major Italian opera houses) but for his recordings with Deutsche Grammophon and Decca[4]. There's also a lot press coverage of multiple aspects of his career + reviews in major Italian newspapers and magazines (not simply for having conducted La donna del lago at the Met), e.g La Stampa, Corriere della Sera, Grazia, etc. – [5], [6][7], [8], [9]. Also in the print classical music magazine Amadeus[10]. If you need any help disciphering the Italian sources, let me know. I'm happy to help.
While I think David Bennett is unlikely to be brought to AfD and would probably survive one if it were, he's slightly more problematic. All the coverage of him in the draft, albeit in fairly important newspapers, is basically slight rewordings of the press release from San Diego Opera (which is a reasonably notable but definitely not top-tier opera company). Otherwise his career as an arts administrator has not been all that notable, and in-depth sources about him prior to the SDO appointment are very thin on the ground, in fact non-existent as far as I can see. I do have references for his appearance at Dallas Opera and Skylight Opera. I'll add them to your draft. I think you need to make the article a bit more of a biographical narrative, as the focus on the SDO sources can tend to make the draft itself sound like a CV or press release. When you move it to article space I suggest David Bennett (arts administrator) rather than "opera director" because he doesn't direct operas, and his career is exclusively in arts administration, including a dance company. At Gotham Opera, he was not responsible for the artistic aspects of their productions, but for the running of the business. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both, that is very helpful input! I think I will hold off on Bennett until he actually takes up his duties at SD Opera. The interim, and his actual arrival, should provide more sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Update after / WP Opera articles in need of updating
Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The {{Update after}} template takes a date (fully specified or partial) and embeds an inline warning tag for dated material when that date passes. More interestingly, it also adds the page to a named category of outdated pages, which could be monitored.
{{Update after|2015|06|21|WP Opera articles in need of updating|reason=tense change needed}}
On the specified dates, these will add entries to Category:WP Opera articles in need of updating. The trick to making this template work well is to find the right level of category — too broad and no-one will maintain it, too narrow and there won't be enough traffic on it for it to be monitored regularly.
Question: is this something that should be done at the level of WP Opera?
After a bit of a break, I'm sort of getting back into WP (not all opera - I'm also starting to try to improve articles on York where I live). Re the above, I'll get round to keep updating Opera North and Wexford (both easyish) and I'll also try to get up to speed with complicated Glyndebourne stuff. BTW, I've recently added all the operas that I've seen on stage (I think - I'm sure - that I've missed one or two) and I should be over 400 by the end of the year). Best wishes to all. GuillaumeTell21:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There's definitely enough material, so I'll set this up as suggested by VdT. The second trick to making the {{Update after}} template work is that no-one removes the template once they have updated the article -- please try to remember to change the date and leave the template in place! I'll embed a comment alongside each use to remind editors. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
All change. The {{Update after}} template needs to be attached to a piece of text in the article that will age. In many cases, eg List of operas at X, there may be no such phrase in the article but the list can still be out of date.
The {{show by date}} template comes to the rescue, displaying one text before a given date, or a second text after it. The format is as follows:
{{show by date|yyyy|mm|dd|text to display before|text to display after}}
Eg
{{show by date|2015|11|01||{{update}}}}
will show nothing (the empty field) before the supplied date (November 2015), and insert a "This article is outdated. Please update ..." article message box after that date. There's no need to set up a new category for this mechanism. Scarabocchio (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Finding opera project articles in need of footnotes
Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Coming on the heels of Scarabocchio's request above: Lately I've come across articles on opera singers that lack footnotes, so I've added the {{no footnotes}} template. Is there a way where one could search and find all the WikiProject:Opera articles that lack footnotes (that is, that are tagged with that template)? kosboot
Thinking laterally, if your edit comments always included the text "{{no footnotes}}", then you could just view the last 500 of your own edits and search within page for the word 'footnotes' .. Scarabocchio (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Voceditenore, are these links (to this and the previous discussion above) always available in the talk page header? -- kosboot (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi kos. I've added the link to the tool to the top section of this page, Article creation and cleanup requests. It's also on the main project page (and always has been) in the How you can help section, just below the CoM and OoM boxes. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
done --Cricketgirl (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
