Talk:English National Opera

English National Opera is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 1, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 18, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
June 27, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opera

This article 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

Old comments

Some brief quotes from critics might well be substituted for some of the following text: "Some critics have described Phyllida Lloyd's Cycle as superior to that at the Royal Opera House in almost every way, although many others thought it was muddled and that its "relentlessly trivialising" approach served only to belittle Wagner's cycle. It was also poorly sung and conducted.' --Wetman 18:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History section seems rather unfair to Balfe? -- Ssilvers 02:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Balfe would have been pleased to be called English. (Not that Sullivan had a drop of English blood, but he was born in these parts.) – Tim riley 11:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growth in younger members

In 2007/8 the English National Opera oversaw a massive growth in its membership scheme for the under-thirties. Its Access All Arias scheme, founded two years ago for younger fans, has risen to 5,600 members making it the largest of its kind in Europe. That is a growth of 72 per cent in the past 12 months. As the new 2008/9 season launches, the ENO is hoping to build on last year's attendance figures which were the best in a decade. The ENO's home, the Coliseum, played to 85 per cent capacity last season up from 68 percent the previous year. [1]

Body found in opera house wall??

What building was that? I remember reading about it a few years ago. It was either in Paris or in London. I don't know if its still standing. When it was being renovated in the mid-1800s a body was discovered inside one of the walls. At that time it was already at least 200 years old. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Featured Article

Congratulations to Tim Riley and all other contributors on the article's forthcoming appearance on the Main Page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ss, for those kind words. I have hastily added a few words about the current season to bring the article up to date, but if anyone cares to expand on them a little bit I shall not repine. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images?

Could this image be used in the Repertory section? If not, how about this one? I note that the company has produced several Philip Glass operas including three British premieres. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good images, but on my screen (wide-ish, so tops and bottoms of paras are not widely separated) I can't see where one would fit in comfortably. Happy to be proved wrong, though. Please be bold, as WP bids us be! Tim riley (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at this.....any thoughts? Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, meseems. I've resized the interior shot for consistency of layout. Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance I wonder how the ENO poster for the Gandhi opera could possibly be public domain? Tim riley (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be. I have removed it and nominated it for deletion. I also have my doubts about File:Deborah Warner's production of Handel's Messiah for the ENO.jpg: Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Concert photography says "Beware of concert photos showing an artistic stage design: such photos are not ok, as they may infringe the stage designer's copyright. Close-ups of performing artists should be fine, though." I think this photo is in the former, not the latter, camp. Any thoughts? Bencherlite ^Talk 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Tim, that's why I had not put it in myself. I think the whole "be bold" thing is badly stated: It should be, "if you are confident, then proceed thoughtfully". I have therefore "confidently" put in the Philip Glass drawing. As for the Handel photo: what stage design? It's a nearly bare stage with a tree. Absolutely not copyrightable under US law (as lacking any significant originality/creativity), and I'm pretty sure it would not be copyrightable under UK law. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I think we've got it right now. The nice interior shot of the Coliseum may have to go if the info-box police park their tanks on the lawn. Fingers crossed we'll escape their attentions, but it's an unjust world and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances. Tim riley (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to undo vandalism

I thought it would be a matter of simply undoing the last edit. Unfortunately not... Still seeing "f*ck this page" in the introduction. Can someone with more experience please undo this? Sorry if my edit looked like part of this vandalism; it is not - I was trying to UNDO vandalism. 93.92.153.12 (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Managed it. Forget I posted. 93.92.153.12 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to remove hagiographic tone

In reply to the question of "why remove this?" of 23 October 2016, some notes on the edits:

The "emphasis on the dramatic aspect" text is pure puffery, and meaningless, because all opera is, in principle and by default, about drama and music. ENO does not differ from any other company in that aspect, whether it be Covent Garden, Opera North, Glyndebourne, Scottish Opera, what have you.
The different extended quotation arrangement clarifies the presentation of those quotes.
The mention of Mark Wigglesworth's in the lede text is meaningless now, because he no longer holds the post.
The "New productions announced for 2015–2016 were..." text reeks of public relations placed ahead of the 2015-2016 season. Such text has no place in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a forum for any organisation or individual to publicise its activities. That is what that entity's own web page is for. Besides, in a more temporal sense, that text is dated.
The format that shows the date of addition of new references from online newspapers is valid, and the preferable format.

I trust that this addresses the question. Cheers, DJRafe (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed your bullets to numbers so they can be better addressed on a point-by-point basis, hope you don't mind.

Disagree. While all opera is drama and music, some companies are better known for emphasizing the music while others emphasize the dramatic aspects. It's not accurate to say that all opera companies do opera in the same way.
Our Manual of Style suggests that blockquoting should be applied only to quotes of 40 words or greater, and even then I don't see a strong case to do that within footnotes.
Removed.
While the wording could be tweaked and I've condensed the listing, things like revivals IMO are valid for inclusion
See WP:CITEVAR. Prior to your edits, all but one of the inline references (which I've now converted) consistently used a format other than the one you used. There is no "preferable format" except consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the "emphasis on the dramatic aspect" text, which is still pure puffery (I have experience in marketing - I know puffery when I read it), in addition to that, that phrase is directly plagarised from the book Conversations with the World's Leading Orchestra and Opera Librarians, Chapter 17, the section that features ENO Music Library & Surtitles manager Damien Kennedy, page 227. Plagarism is unacceptable practice on wikipedia; period, full stop. DJRafe (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That book was published in June 2016, while the phrase in question was added to the article in June 2011. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on English National Opera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English National Opera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822172914/http://www.chandos.net/ChandosCatalogue2009Small.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/ChandosCatalogue2009Small.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English National Opera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928102936/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23557596-details/Under-30s+rush+for+cheap+seats+at+the+ENO/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23557596-details/Under-30s+rush+for+cheap+seats+at+the+ENO/article.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]