Talk:Lists of opera companies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion of January 2006

This is really a very odd list. It includes a number of very minor companies (Geneva, Cleveland, Palermo etc.) while missing out major ones like the Deutsche Oper Berlin, Lyon, English National Opera etc. Why are we using Encylopedia Britannica anyway?

Kleinzach 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the note. Originally, I added this succinct list to partially satisfy concerns that the global city article and city list was too ... focused on certain economic criteria (which remains somewhat unproven). It also satisfies concerns about citing sources: though I don't disagree with you, it precludes any Wikipedian from making value judgements about what opera companies should or shouldn't be included and is, thus, a manageable list.

If you know of another citable yet brief (or superior) list, please feel free to suggest it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am rather puzzled. Why do you want to borrow a list from another publication, especially Britannica?

Wikipedia contains many lists written by contributors, hopefully from a neutral point of view. A number of us have just done a list of some 1100 operas. We include works we think are important, not just ones we like.

The Encylopedia Britannica list is more subjective than anything a good Wikipedian would produce. The compiler evidently knew little about the subject. There are objective criteria - size of company, size of budget, number of productions a year - that can be used to determine which are the major companies. These criteria were not used by Encylopedia Britannica.

Would you agree to delete the list and start again?

Kleinzach 13:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, which is even more puzzling. This list with explicit proviso is at least cited and verifiable (which anyone can do) ... and it's brief (25 vis-à-vis 1 100). It may not be agreeable to you or me – which are inherent points of view (including criteria stated, which neither you nor should opine on) – but it doesn't obviate its existence. Moreover, this list was chosen precisely because it is in a reputable publication, so we can agree to disagree about it being subjective. While I don't besmirch the lists generated by Wikipedians, how are they any more or less valid? The current list satisfies all the basic criteria for entries in Wp.

Until another summative list from a reputable source can be produced, I do not agree to delete the current list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed verifiable that the list is random and contains omissions of major companies and inclusion of minor ones. It is an objective fact that the Washington Opera {major) is omitted and the Cleveland Opera (minor) and Boston Lyric Opera (minor) are included. I realize that you don't know anything about opera but you will find it easy enough to check this.

After that please come back to me and we can see how the list can be made more satisfactory.

Kleinzach 14:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your contentions are hardly objective; please source. And to point: please refrain from pejorative commentary, or it will be given the due attention it deserves. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Source? The source we use on Wikipedia? The main reference used for opera articles on Wikipedia is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera with approximately 11,000 articles many of them about opera companies. Will you accept the authority of that publication? Or does it have to be Encylopedia Britannica?

Encylopedia Britannica has much less information about opera than the New Grove Dictionary of Opera and it wasn't written by a team of experts comparable to the 1,300 scholars who worked on Grove. (In fact, Encylopedia Britannica contains many errors as a recent study by some scientists discovered).

I would be happy to provide a list of companies that appear in Grove, in place of the present, inaccurate one from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Kleinzach 16:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I realise you've spearheaded Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, but use of "we" can be troubling. :)

That being said, I don't doubt the authority of Grove: of course I don't accept only the authority of Encyclopedia Britannica, though it's generally a good place to start for this and that. And recall above that I included it as a summative list in lieu of anything else.

As long as said list is brief, balanced, categorises companies equitably, and can be cited, I've no problem including it and or replacing the current list.

Moreover, you could've obviated any adversarialism by stating sources upfront and refraining from use of possibly incivil language. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed done a lot of work on the Opera project recently but I did not originate it and the basic policies were formed before I joined. On the list of participants, I am three from the bottom. Hence I say 'we'.

If you are in agreement, I'll post a new list to the page next week and you can look at it. I will not however be citing a page-referenced source. One does not exist. We use Grove to check our research but there is no one place where it says "New Grove considers the 25 main opera companies are . . .". That would be ridiculous.

Incidentally lists are not copyright-able.

Kleinzach 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"We" infers a collective sanctioning of your recommendations/actions, which isn't the case. "You" or third-person referencing is more appropriate.

I recommend such a list be posted here beforehand. The EB list is of "notable" opera companies, without elaborating (and perhaps for good reason, perhaps not). I'm sure there are criteria in Grove for the classification of opera companies as "major" or "minor" (as you contend)? I'd expect details of this dichotomy to be elaborated upon. I still know not nor has it been made clear on what criteria such a list would be based and it should remain summative (not necessarily 25 but not 1 100; otherwise, it would be redundant with the lengthy list), and better the devil I do know than the one I don't. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Grove not Grover, see New Grove Dictionary of Opera.

As I explained above, the normal criteria for a major company would be "size of company [i.e. personnel], size of budget, number of productions a year". (History can also be taken into account.) Not all of this information is available but we can pretty much guess. Major companies are in major cities and attract large audiences. As for the number of companies involved, this wouldn't be great. Probably less than the present list. The top rank of companies is small, whereas the second rank is large (due in part to the large number of medium-sized German operahouses). In any case, 'notable' clearly implies a small number. I think there is another page with a full list, or perhaps a category list.

Wikipedia belongs to everybody so it would not be appropriate to post any list on this Talk page for your personal approval. It goes on the article page for everybody to see. You can then make comments/corrections or whatever in the normal way. I trust that is OK.

Kleinzach 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected.

I ask again, can you cite the criteria for distinguishing "major" and "minor" operas in Grove, or are these your assertions? Surely the criteria are delineated somewhere? If it's a matter of "guess[work]" and subjectivity, and from what I gather it might be, then frankly such a list may not belong in Wp. I respectfully decline to rely on your interpretation of this and that without citations.

I suggest including the list here first to improve it, not for "personal approval." The talk pages for articles are wholly appropriate places to review content, ideas, and to not muddy an article history with repeated edits. This is not unreasonable. And, though I don't disagree, you frankly haven't demonstrated precisely why the current list should be usurped by one that is arguably based on equally subjective criteria and one that meets with your "personal approval."

You've made this far more difficult than necessary. If you cannot or will not agree to do so here and collaborate, and if you can't or won't cite verifiable rationale for the list you propose, we disagree. I can and will review the list anyway and (as Wp belongs to everyone) nix it or restore the prior list if it doesn't conform to Wp policies. And there's really nothing more to say regarding that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about companies not operas.

The number of companies included in an list of this kind would be arbitrary, so 'major' and 'minor' labels are relative. There is nevertheless a distinction that can be made between the few large nationally-supported companies that employ international artists and have an international audience, and the smaller second rank houses, which are many.

In the absence of statistics, you can get an idea of the relative size of different houses by googling them. If you try the Washington Opera (not on the list) you get 18 million hits. If you google the Boston Lyric Opera (on the list) you get 1.5 million. That's a clear indicator that the article is unreliable.

The present list includes some very small houses which only give a limited number of annual performances.

About 60 percent of the world's opera performances are in the three German-speaking countries (according to the stats of the Deutscher Bühnenverein). The Volksoper in Vienna (not listed) give 270 performances a year. How many do the two companies in Canada (on the list) give, I wonder? Perhaps you can tell me as you apparently live in Toronto.

The present article is not scientific, just an inaccurate list you have taken from a print encylopedia. It contains no substance and no statistics. Hence talk of 'citing' this or that is really beside the point. If you had written a real article based on your own research, we could be having an academic discussion about it. We could indeed be 'citing' this or that source etc. But you haven't.

Kleinzach 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated why the list you propose – based on your admitted 'guesswork' and relative points of view – should usurp the one already in place. That's neither scientific nor necessarily accurate, and the current list has been added in accordance with policies and procedures. Deal with it.

The joy of a wiki is that you can easily visit the websites for the Canadian or other opera companies listed to determine how many performances they conduct annually.

I'll also point out that you're extremely argumentative: we're talking about a summative list of notable opera companies derived from an "encylopedia" [sic], not one based on what you think should be in it. And citing sources is at the core of Wikipedia: you've haven't done that in your verbiage; until you can, any contributions stemming from that (list or otherwise herein) may be nixed. End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note on subjective nature of opera companies chosen in this list (March 2006)

Since "E Pluribus Anthony" admits that this list is subjective in nature (and he has removed my comment on the fact that, having read the relevant entry in the EB Almanac 2005 and reviewed its list of named editors, I find that "Britannica provides no criteria for inclusion and none of the named members of the Editorial staff has any connection to the opera world"), we need to begin to revise this list based on a series of more objective factors.

I fully agree with "Kleinzach" in his comments above. While there exists no single source of the top opera companies (whether they be 25 or 40), the inclusion of several of the companies (and, more importantly, the exclusion of others such as Houston Grand Opera, which has the distinction of producing 33 world premieres and 6 US premieres of new operas, many of which have entered the repertory) needs to addressed so that a casual brouser in search of information on this topic will get a rather better education than the EB is able to provide.

Vivaverdi 23:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit that this or any said list would be subjective. As noted above, this is a perfunctory, summative list that anyone can verify; while I'm wholly open to improving or replacing it, as above, I see little reason to replace it with another list compiled by Wikipedia editors that is arguably more subjective and of similar authority/utility. Are the criteria cited true indicators of being notable? This constitutes a point-of-view as much as the current list might and would require similar provisos. Moreover, assertions about the constituency of the EB editorial board are unverifiable embellishments and unjustified ... just as much as if we were to include the credentials of Wp editors or gauge the list on that basis: the reference alone is sufficient. As well, for informational value, a more detailed list already exists but there's always room for improvement.

If an alternate, verifiable, and preferably objective list exists, please provide and cite – good luck. Otherwise, I defer to prior statements. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am getting into this discussion somewhat late, but can wholly support the views of Viva Verdi and Kleinzach. While the EB list seems to be the only game in town (so far at least), I do not see it as meeting the requirements of Wikipedia. There are just too many really important opera companies (or houses) that are omitted, for reasons that I sometimes find hard to understand. To cite a few not previously cited examples--the Teatro La Fenice in Venice, where the world premieres of such vitally important operas as Rigoletto and Ernani took place. This may because it was closed for some years when the list was prepared, as was the Teatro Del Liceo in Barcelona. But I can think of no possible excuse for omitting the Teatro Colon in Argentina, which will soon be celebrating its centenary, and including the Finnish Opera. I think the only viable solution is for the editors of Wikipedia to provide their own list. User Buondelmonte 29 March 2006

As someone who has hereunto not contributed anything to Wikipedia (at least with the above user name), said user/input should be treated with skepticism and is just as subjective as the list said users would replace. And, still, noone has presented another comparable, verifiable list ... something which the current list already satisfies. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am so glad you riased that point, since you are the same guy who complained when your credentials were questioned. May I suggest we compare credentials? Both on and off Wikipedia. Let's start there. I don't know why my contributions did not come up--perhaps they will if you go to an entry I am now working on: Grand opera. After that, I can invite you to visit my web site, and will certainly accept an invitation to visit yours. Fair enough? Tom Kaufman

I'm uncertain what is meant above by "complained". The intent of my comment was to highlight that no edits accompanied the user name and see little reason, nor am I required to, compare credentials. Said requests are inappropriate. Good luck in your editing, but the above detracts from the purpose of this talk page/list ...

Correction, this user has apparently been editing for a couple months. My apologies, but any ambiguity could've been obviated if said user properly signed their contributions with four tildes (~~~~) instead of typing a null user name (and hence the redlink above). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. But I had momentatrily forgotten the code of four tildes.

Hopefully, we are now on the path to resolving this problem. A new list should appear shortly. But, instead of signing my name as Buondelmonte, the four tildes yield my first name. (see below).

Tom 02:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

and frankly I'm stupefied by the inability of editors to provide a salient, verifiable list – while opining ad nauseum about the current one – and resistance to what is intended to be a simple list that already satisfies Wp guidelines. I defer to prior comments and won't comment again until something germane is said. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Criteria note (10 April 2006)

I am have removed the criteria note from the beginning of the article. This position is too prominent. People don't want to read discussions of criteria before they look at an article. Doesn't this kind of detail belong on the Talk page? Isn't that what the Talk page is for?

Kleinzach 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring this information; not having this information in the article gives the guise that it is authoritative and indisputable. No matter how well reasoned, it is an amalgam of opinions from Wikipedia editors and arguably original groupthink. Moreover, the wky atop clearly leads to the 'References' section below. The prior list expressly did this upfront and I see little reason for this one to not ... particularly because it is a collaborative effort. Besides: a spade is a spade. The talk page is intended for discourse, as before.

Feel free to move the criteria and note after the list but it should remain so visitors know what they're getting into. This can also be obviated by including detailed criteria for inclusions in this list. Of course, the alternatives are far less desirable (e.g., POV tag). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have moved the criteria to the foot of the table. Perhaps this will serve as a compromise? - Kleinzach 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've slightly embellished it (as it otherwise seems like an orphan statement without context), but that's fine! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Of course, there is a wider semantic problem here. If the list is not of the top 60 (or whatever number) but only of 'notable' (=worth jotting down on a postit) then selection criteria don't mean anything. One to mull over at our leisure perhaps? Kleinzach 16:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. And yes: hence the incipient list (with its flaws and clear proviso) and subsequent debate/list. What is notable? Remember, the original list was placed to partially allay concerns that the concept of global city (a documented and treatised phenomenon) and the relevant article was similarly subjective. It still is to a degree. In both respects, it's somewhat a matter of opinion ... and that's why citing sources and doing so in an ambivalent manner are keys in this venue. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of other opera companies, Nov 2006

Much thought and time went into compiling the list of 60 companies. (Please see "New Title, New Content, 10 April below)

Any additions or subtractions should be by the general agreement of and consulatation with the contributors to the the article from the Wiki Opera Group, and discussed ON THIS PAGE. The list was compiled by considering a variety of factors and, local "fans" of certain opera companies not withstanding (from his name, the Dallas contributor is clearly from there), an attempt at a balance has been made.

These same comments apply to the inclusion, then removal of the San Diego Opera earlier in the year.

Based on the criteria, Dallas Opera has yet to achieve the same level as the 60 companies included.

Vivaverdi 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested change of title to 'List of important opera companies'

Let me state my agreemnent with VivaVerdi and Kleinzach that the word important better fits the character of this list than notable. Apologies for signing as Tom, but unable to bring up Buondelmonte with four tildes.

Tom

Changing the title to the above makes sense to me.

Vivaverdi 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve been reflecting on the title and I agree the best one would be ‘List of important opera companies’. This would be clearer than ‘notable’. (Every opera company in the world is ‘notable’ in some way or other). ‘Large’ or ‘largest’ would be confusing as it could refer to the number of employees or the budget or indeed the theatre. ‘Major’ comes close, but ‘important’ is better.

If everyone is now agreed, I will make the change later today. - Kleinzach 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now made the change. - Kleinzach 08:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also re-worded the first sentence, for the new title and to make it a bit clearer. Please say if you think it still needs improving! - Kleinzach 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

New title, new content, 10 April 2006

This article now has a new title and new content, written by three members (Kleinzach, Viva Verdi and Buondelmonte) of the Opera Project.

As previously discussed here and agreed by all except one contributor, the previous list was a random collection of major, minor and obscure companies that followed no recognizable logic. It did not come from a reliable opera information source and was misleading and unhelpful.

The criteria we used to compile the present list were: (a) the present artistic standing of the company, (b) the number of its ensemble members, (c) the size of the budget, (d) the number of performances and seats sold each year, and also (e) its historical importance and associations with famous composers, singers and conductors.

The list is based on both print sources (noted at the foot of the article page) and online resources (company websites and databases) linked to the individual articles about the companies.

Following Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view) policy, we have not given preference to any particular country or continent in our selection.

Note: this is a list of the top 60 opera companies (not opera houses!) in the world. We hope contributors will respect the limit of 60 entries. If a new name is added, an old one should therefore come out. We hope that any changes will be noted and explained on this talk page! Please don't add your local company unless it really, genuinely, rates as one of the top 60 and you can identify a lesser organization to delete. Kleinzach 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your new list. The new title was unnecessary though; the list is still a list of notable opera companies. Putting "60 important" makes the point of the list unnecessarily vague.--BaronLarf 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: rationale for this list should be clearly indicated in the actual article; that would make it truly comprehensive. Otherwise, it appears (though may not be) just as subjective as the prior list.

And as for Kleinzach's other commentary above, I've been clear from the get-go about the nature of the prior sourced list and – in absence of an alternate – reasons for placing it. Please refrain from arguably perjorative commentary hereafter. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the earlier debate, so I don't want to necessarily take sides on why the new versus the old list; I only objected to the new title the page was given. Though I edited the page a couple times before I finally figured out what was really going on, the end result of my edits was:

• The article was moved back to its former title (see above rationale)
• the category was changed to "opera companies" (since the article is about opera companies, not opera in general)
• removed "see alsos" to city and global city (Would someone really gain more of an understanding of opera companies by going to an article on cities?) and
• removed the test "A separate list of opera festivals is in preparation." (Notes about development of articles, etc., do not belong in the article, only in talk pages.)

These changes chan be seen by looking at this diff --BaronLarf 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive vs. inclusive lists

Some thought went into the title of List of 60 important opera companies.

We started off from an agreed position (shared by all involved) that this was - for the convenience of the readers - an exclusive, limited list, not an unlimited inclusive one.

After some research, we found that the upper limit of 60 worked best. We then decided to put this in the title to make it absolutely clear what we had compiled. I don't see how the number 60 can hardly be termed vague.

BaronLarf then turned the title into an inclusive List of opera companies which is fine if we want to change the intention of the article. After that it was turned back into the former List of notable opera companies. I'd suggest that this is vague and re-opens the pedantic 'can of worms' (fully documented on this page) about what should or should not be included. What do other people think?

Kleinzach 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the group compiling this new list, I'd support Kleinzach above.

If the list simply keeps getting added to without consensus, where does "Notable" stop? The list could go on for ever.

We carefully sifted through all the claims made by each company to come up with this managable number. Vivaverdi 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The current title is fine: noting 60 in the article title is improper. I'd include a number if it was an authoritative, sourced list so named (e.g., AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains, et al.). This is not. Include this proviso in the lead/intro for the list instead; otherwise, see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there will always be a can of worms when it comes to selective lists; this can be limited by coming to a compromise (like what seems to have been done here) and collectively enforcing the agreed-upon resolution. Simply calling something "The top 60" won't take away the fact that someone else might come along and say that another company deserves to be in that list instead of another one.

If, though, there's consensus that the title should be "List of largest opera companies" or "List of major opera companies", I would have no problem moving the article to that name instead.

And I agree that there needs to be a clear statement of the outside criteria involved in making this list, if only so that the list can continue to be updated when companies merge, etc. Otherwise the list would seem to come close to original research (a no-no). --BaronLarf 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'm delighted to see 60 is back in the first sentence. We are closer to a compromise. My recommendation is 'List of important opera houses'. 'Largest' is problematic in various ways. 'Important' is, in my opinion, stronger than 'major' or 'notable'. - Kleinzach 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is sufficient. In numerous contexts, and IMO this one, 'notable' and 'important' are synonyms so a move to to the latter would be ineffectual. Otherwise, I agree that 'major' and 'largest' are problematic given the topic matter of this list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at a thesaurus you will find that synonyms of notable include words like celebrated, famed, famous, illustrious, noted, noteworthy, renowned. Not the meaning we want here. The sense we want to convey here is big, powerful, prestigious, influential etc. hence important is appropriate IMO. - Kleinzach 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we? Uh, my Concise Oxford Thesaurus says precisely what is indicated above: important is a synonym for notable ... and in the same (2nd) sense as some other words indicated above (prestigious, influential). I'm unsure if this discussion can proceed further and hence withdraw, but I defer to my prior comments. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)