Talk:Lists of opera companies/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Redundancy

I have taken out the redundant first sentence (This is a list of notable opera companies) following List of notable opera companies. I trust that's OK with everybody! - Kleinzach 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the prior rendition, which is actually supported in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, e.g., reiteration. Ideally, notions should be consolidated into a single sentence and relevant terms emboldened and wikified, but the MoS discourages this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to clarify what specifically you referring to in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You should explain why you support redundant repetition against common sense, and in contrast to the usage on other Wikipedia pages. The entry on Joe Bloggs (or whoever) does not start This is about Joe Bloggs, the article on Opera does not start This is about opera, the List of famous operas does not start This is a list of famous operas. etc. Surely you know this? - Kleinzach 10:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Before gibbering, please familiarise yourself with the MoS regarding titles and other items regarding style in Wp. I've tweaked the lead additionally. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The MoS regarding titles reference does not support simple repetition/redundancy. It recommends using the title (normally short) as the subject of the first sentence and not as the predicate, e.g. Enrico Caruso was a tenor.

Here is the text: "If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style".

My edit was correct, not merely from the point of view of good English, and common sense, but also from the point of view of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

The word gibbering is offensive. Show respect! I have written substantially to this article. - Kleinzach 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. The example cited is proof-positive of reiteration and the current edition: "This Manual of Style is a style guide". Your edit didn't embolden any text and, thus, was incorrect from a number of viewpoints. Otherwise, I defer to my prior comments ... and perhaps you should reflect on your prior perjorative commentary before pointing the finger in response. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have once again changed the text and punctuation of the introduction. You seem to change it every hour. What is the point of arguing for a given form and then re-editing it? Please let us know when you have finished and we can then look at it again. Oh, and by the way, the use of bold is not an issue - but I think you understand that at least, even if you don't recognize concepts like subject and predicate. - Kleinzach 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, emboldending text is an issue: when doing so in the first sentence, the MoS discourages wikifying those terms too (i.e., bold + wky = no-no). Consequently, that changes the way the introduction should be rendered ... and hence the current state (with appropriate syntax). To embolden and wikify text is inconsistent with the MoS. The alternative (or similar) seems cumbersome:

This list of notable opera companies, totalling sixty permanent (opera companies/ones) in all, has been compiled based on various criteria.

Selected seems wrong to me.

Regarding your other ... comments – this is a wiki: anyone can edit and it's in a constant state of flux. I neither require your permission nor need to inform you of when I'll be making edits or when they cease. Deal with it. And, yet again, you cry foul and then you go right ahead and insinuate a perjorative stance ... wholly counterproductive. If you cannot judiciously apply English in this forum, perhaps you should refrain from doing so and remain silent. Apropos: in future, your commentaries will be accorded due attention by me and dealt with appropriately. Understand? End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to play nice, everyone. WP:CIVIL. It might be a good idea for everyone to just take a break from this article for a day or to to get some perspective. Cheers --BaronLarf 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

List of opera festivals is now available, 23 April 2006

The new list of notable opera companies is deliberately designed to reflect only full time companies. We are working on the opera festivals list.

Vivaverdi 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The List of opera festivals is now available. Vivaverdi 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SDO

I'm adding San Diego Opera, because it is a reputable opera company and is ranked by Opera America as one of the top 10 opera companies in the United States [1]. SDO generally puts on five operas per year and hires opera singers from around the world, many of whom are quite well-known (such as Renee Fleming, Richard Leech, and even Luciano Pavarotti). I've found that the company also has a knack for identifying rising stars in the opera world (such as Marina Domashenko). More information can be found at the San Diego Opera website. I will create the article for San Diego Opera in the near future. --Muugokszhiion 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know the standard in San Diego is high, and it will be good to have a full article on the company, however just 5 operas a year would make it one of the smallest company listed. How does it compare to Seattle or the Welsh National Opera, I wonder? If San Diego is in, maybe we should take another company out to keep the number to 60? - Kleinzach 10:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Muugokszhiion for some rationale on San Diego and the offer to write an article. However, looking at Renee Fleming's appearances with the SDO, I find nothing after her Rusalka in January 1995 at a time when was a relatively unknown singer. Kudos to SDO for hiring her then, but so did the Virginia Opera and the Washington Concert Opera.

It is true that the SDO does hire rising stars (even established ones like Joan Sutherland whom I saw in the US premiere production of Verdi's I masnadieri), and before he left SDO after nearly bankrupting the company in the mid-1980s, Tito Capobianco produced some innovative Early-and-Late Verdi pairings.

But, in my view, all this does not make an "important" company when considered on a world scale. Seattle, while narrowly qualifying for the 60, has the advantage of an innovative and talented director in Speight Jenkins and a very well-known Ring cycle with major international singers.

Vivaverdi 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly familiar with this company as I published an interview with the general manager Ian Campbell on my website. However I agree with Vivaverdi that it may not meet our criteria in this case, though it should be on other lists and definitely deserves an article. Would Muugokszhiion mind if we take it off this list? - Kleinzach 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I do think it is an important opera company and deserves some sort of mention, I will understand if you don't think it meets the criteria for this particular list. I'll still work to get the San Diego Opera article up and running. --Muugokszhiion 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I have taken San Diego out of this list, but we certainly still need a good article on the house and it should be included in other, more inclusive, lists. Regards - Kleinzach 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Opera North

I think this company should be on the list. It is an offshoot of English National Opera and has recently received major awards for its work, including:

• Winner of the Royal Philharmonic Society Award for Opera & Music Theatre 2007
• Winner of the South Bank Show Award for Opera 2007
• Winner of the Royal Philharmonic Society Award for Opera & Music Theatre 2005
• Winner of the South Bank Show Award for Opera 2005

It is performing eight operas this year in two seasons (Apr-Jul, Sep-Dec), featuring Alan Opie in the title role of Rigoletto and The Magic Flute directed by Tim Supple. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

On balance, comparing this company with the others on the list (and I have SEEN TWO O.N. productions) and unless a consensus exists to expand the list beyond 60, I do not think that it deserves inclusion.

Are you going to say which user you are? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research

I've put an original research tag on this article. I think there are several problems. There is no explanation as to how the number 60 was arrived at. If this is the consensus of editors it is original research. There needs to be a citation that claims something important about the number 60. If there is no such claim in a citation, and I doubt there is, the number should go. There needs to be a clear inclusion criteria that is based upon an external source's research. For example, you could list every opera company that has ever been on a published list of the "top 10 opera companies in the world" or some other objective external measure. This needs to be clearly stated. Any listing that results on collating information from several sources and having an editor weigh that information to create a list would not be valid.

I suspect that means this list needs to be radically overhauled. Otherwise it should be deleted. This is a problem with many lists at Wikipedia. Some survive and some don't. For an example of a list set up the way I've described, see Films considered the greatest ever. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a list that gives its selection criteria. I don't think it's justifiable to call it original research. It's a list not a text. All the information is verifiable etc. -- Kleinzach 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The selection criteria is that of editors here, not some external source. The selections are made by editors here, not some external source. It most definitely seems to fit the definition of original research. The information used to make the selection is not presented so how can it be verified? The method of making the selection is not presented. There is no way to verify the selection as one of the 60 from an external source. I suggest revamping the page. Another option is that we discuss it at AFD. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it help if we deleted the number 60 and abandoned the section criteria and made the list randomly inclusive? Is that what you are suggesting? Any explanation that is free of TLAs would be much appreciated. Also I didn't understand your reference to Films considered the greatest ever. Was it an example of a good list or a bad one? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you abandoned the number 60 and came up with a method of inclusion based on an external source. This is what was done for some of the other opera lists. I don't know if there are any external lists of important opera companies that you can draw on. The key word here is "important". If it is the editors here that determine what is important it won't fly. If you find some external sources that talk about "important" companies it might fly. I've been involved with the films list for a few years. I was mentioning it as a good example. It almost got deleted early on because it was a fairly random collection of films based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. Now there has to be a citation for each listing that has some external mention of a film being "the best". With any list like this there is a line where common sense becomes original research. It is not immediately obvious where that line is. For the film list, we allow mentions of top rankings at imdb.com, but it becomes original research if you say "XXX is the highest ranked comedy at the IMDB". The reason for this is that the IMDB is a general poll. People never voted for the best comedy, they simply rank films. The film that is the top ranked comedy film might not be the film people think is the best comedy it might only be the best film that happens to be a comedy. So you have to be very careful how you combine information. I think the other opera lists border on being original research because they have decided that being on six particular lists is some sort of magic cut-off. This could be challenged. It would be better if the criteria was simply being on any one of the lists, and perhaps add footnotes to indicate on which lists it appears. This would also make it possible to add more lists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no print source for such a list. There are national agencies that produce tomes of statistics like the Deutsche Bühnenverein [2] but no simple international source like IMDB. Our main reference is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera which obviously doesn't have this kind of thing, nor does any other reputable print source that I know of. (All popular opera publications are domestic rather than international). This list here was done some time ago. (If I remember correctly we had a problem with people adding on their local Gilbert and Sullivan societies, hence the 60 number.) If we take out both the 60 number and the word 'important' would that justify removing the OR tag? -- Kleinzach 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If no reputable source would have something like this, neither should we. If we removed the number "60" and word "important", then it becomes "List of opera companies", a perfectly acceptable list. To differentiate the list from the category it should include information that cannot be found from looking at the category. I would suggest organizing the list geographically and adding information like the year founded, the number of productions yearly, etc... It should attempt to be comprehensive, and be labeled as incomplete until it is. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the '60', before going further I'd like to ask for other comments. Regarding reputable sources, you misunderstood me. There are good reasons why print sources don't have this information., not least because they date (unlike WP) while the fortunes of opera companies go up and down a bit like football clubs. -- Kleinzach 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sam that having such vague criteria leaves the list vulnerable to users personal preferences. Perhaps we should change it to List of award winning opera companies making clear which awards are accepted? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know of any international awards. -- Kleinzach 00:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble on this page because it was linked to another. I don't expect to participate in the overhaul of the page. If you have any questions, leave a note on my talk page. Otherwise, I hope your efforts are fruitful. I still suggest a comprehensive list that has simple criteria such as "companies that produce 5 or more grand operas a year (not operettas)" or something similar. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now raised this on the Opera Project see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#List_of_important_opera_companies. -- Kleinzach 00:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about 'list of "notable" opera companies', where the criterion would be that the opera company must have an article on Wikipedia (by definition, anything with an article on Wikipedia is notable). That would at least exclude the addition of names of opera companies about which there is no information on Wikipedia? Also, how about a criterion of "currently in existence" to weed out those that no longer perform? Just a thought. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with any kind of criteria - and the ones used here were quite stringent - is that if they are chosen by editors they are ipso facto subjective, or in WP-speak original research. Ironically if Joe Smith of the Wyoming Jackson Hole News writes a list up next week we are allowed to cite it here and the page is legitimized! (I don't agree with all this, but I am not going to dedicate my life to changing WP policy.) (All the companies listed are performing so no problem there anyway.) -- Kleinzach 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously amateur/semi professional opera companies should be excluded. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Opera Project seems to be all in favour of changing the name to List of opera companies but this exists as redirect. Can anybody help? -- Kleinzach 03:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So the new name is “List of opera companies”? What is the different with “opera houses” then? It is “basically” mean the same except we all know that these are list of notable houses a.k.a companies. I will maintain the title of “List of important opera companies” in Wiki MS (translated, of course). To my knowledge (based on articles we can google over the net), these houses/companies are “important” or sit at the top above others, so what is the big deal? I don’t understand why we have to change it. Besides, if this is a “List of opera .. whatever”, what’s with the criteria? Shall we remove that too? I think “notable” as what Ssilvers suggested is more appropriate. - Jay 06:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some opera companies aren't based at just one place or are touring so it's not the same. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also the histories of houses and companies are different.

The reason we had to change it is the WP original research policy. I disagree with this policy in many ways - it is applied too strictly and pedantically - but (like other OP editors) I don't want to see the article deleted. The article will undoubtedly deteriorate from now on with many inappropriate additions but that's the lesser evil. Anyway I assure you I'm not happy about this either. -- Kleinzach 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Consult the archive -- the original nature of the list was brought up long ago. Corticopia 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Really. Were you involved in discussions before? -- Kleinzach 22:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a lurker. Corticopia 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The article you link to explains there are "Malevolent lurkers", "Benign lurkers", "Constructive lurkers", "Smart-Ass lurkers", "Perverted lurkers" and "Starcraft Lurkers". Let's hope you are a "Benign Lurker"! -- Kleinzach 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete list?

I see Sam has put an 'incomplete list' tag on this. I don't really understand this. Surely calling a list incomplete implies that it can be completed and that this is the aim of editing. If it is declared to be complete at some time in the future (just as it was before) then once again someone will pop up and accuse the editors of original research. It seems there is always a catch on WP and the bona fide contributor is always in the wrong. -- Kleinzach 10:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The incomplete list tag is not a scarlet letter. Since the list does not say which companies are included and which are not, someone coming to the page could be led to believe that this is a complete list of companies. Are there any other full-time professional opera companies that present performances during an annual season? If so, they should be added. If not, the list should be labeled as incomplete. Suppose someone was looking at the list to find out if there was an opera company in San Diego. If the list is labeled as incomplete, they would be warned about the omission. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what a scarlet letter is. Something to do with the Hawthorne novel? Look, I don't want to waste your time if opera is not your subject. (I see you wrote above that you "don't expect to participate in the overhaul of the page." so I'm a bit puzzled why you want to get involved in the detail of something which is so complicated.)

Well, there are other opera companies - lot's of them, but bear in mind that (1) two-thirds of all opera productions are in the three German-speaking countries, (2) Italian and Spanish statistics are difficult to obtain, (3) "full-time, professional" is difficult to define because of varying employment practices, theatre usage, season length etc. of opera companies (far more complex than say drama companies), (4) each year there are many changes in the type of contracts, length of season, availability of theatres etc.

I could produce a list of 'missing' companies based on published information (in various languages). (It would take me several days to do it and note that a large percentage of the companies would be German.) However if I did - and listed them here - it would again become a selection and you, or somebody else, would tell me it was original research. -- Kleinzach 09:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not wasting my time. I'm an opera lover, not an opera scholar. (It also happens that my cousin is listed as the author of some of the references). I'm here mainly as a passerby, but I'm also an admin, and I've worked on a featured list (List of largest suspension bridges). To reply to your points:

1. That is useful information. I don't see any reason to exclude companies from a list just because so many of them are from three countries.
2. You could note this so that people would be aware that the information about Italy and Spain is not complete.
3. Perhaps there's an easier way to measure instead of "full-time professional". You could say companies that produced more than 6 productions a year or something similarly easy to measure.
4. With an easier measure, you could note if there was an anomaly.

Yes, the scarlet letter was a Hawthorne analogy. My point is that I am not expecting you or anyone else to make this list perfect. If the list is tagged as being incomplete it does not mean you have to fix it. It is just an alert for readers. If in fact you produced the list based on published information -- as long as the cut-off criteria is objective, obvious, and based on references -- it is not original research. There is no problem if you collate information and apply simple objective criteria to create a list. It only becomes problematic if you combine information and draw conclusions from it or make subjective editorial decisions. For example, in creating the list of Bridges, I used several lists I found online and updated them using two databases that had lists of recent bridges. Since everything on the list can be found in the references, and the list is ranked by the length of spans there is no original research, just collating information. So really, all you have to do is come up with the simple measure for what belongs and what doesn't, and then let the article evolve. You don't have to commit to doing all the work yourself. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If the cut-off criteria for the 60 companies were not "objective, obvious" to WP editors, then those for the hypothetically complete list would not be either. There is no "simple measure for what belongs and what doesn't" that the original contributors to this article failed to discover.

WP:OR is a trap for anyone who puts effort into a page like this. This is obviously a worthwhile article, but WP editors like yourself will not give contributors the benefit of the doubt, even when the information is easily verifiable and the selection method is explained. The participants in the Opera Project recognized that you were technically correct in your objections, hence the changes you demanded were made. -- Kleinzach 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR is a trap for anyone who puts effort into a page like this and comes up with a brilliant synthesis of information that cannot be found elsewhere, filled with insight, intelligence and sound judgment. This very well may be the case for this article. If so, you should try publishing it elsewhere as it is not appropriate for a project based on the notion of not being a primary source. You should also consider the flip side. WP:OR is a trap for any crackpot who posts their misguided collection of superficially connected information, filled with misunderstandings, poor judgment and ignorance. The idea behind "no original research" and "verifiability" is the visitor to this site can determine for themselves if the things posted are correct. It is possible to verify if an opera company stages more than X number of productions, or some other objective cut-off. It was not possible to verify why the 60 made it to this list and the others did not. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OR is a safeguard against someone who 'discovers a new symphony by Beethoven' or whatever. The opera companies are/were easily verifiable because the ones listed (now at any rate) are big businesses. (Unlike OR we don't seem to have problems with the verification policy.) Your last point, It is possible to verify if an opera company stages more than X number of productions, or some other objective cut-off just begs the question of what an objective cut off point is. One person will say productions, another performances, another revenue or tickets sold or size of theatre etc etc. Whatever criteria, or combination of criteria, we use will be open to challenge and since the editors here will have chosen the criteria, someone will claim it is OR. (BTW - to set the record straight - I don't remember clearly but don't think I was the main contributor to this article, certainly not to the articles on the actual companies). -- Kleinzach 07:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Any of the criteria you mention, either sigularly, or in combination would be acceptable, and would not be original research. I suspect that the real issue is not deciding which companies to include, but which to exclude. This might be easier to agree on. I suspect you don't want companies primarily poducing musical theatre or operetta, you don't want companies with a part time staff, etc... Perhaps this could be stated, "this list includes all opera companies except...." If these are quantitative distinctions it is not original research. If it is a qualitative assessment of what makes a company important it is. Part of the OR distinction is in how the data is presented. The criteria you come up with could be open to challenge, but you can always respond "this list is about opera, start a new list about operetta..." or whateer. You could start the list with a cut off of 8 operas and populate it. If later someone thinks the cut off should be 6 and they are willing to do the work to complete the list, that shouldn't be controversial. It might be labeled as complete at 8 and incomplete at 6. Whatever the situation, it should be transparent to the reader. When I was working on getting my bridge list feature status, I was asked "Why are there a hundred-odd bridges on the list? How did you arrive at the cut-off point?" My answer was that the cut-off number had no significance other than the fact that I included all the bridges I could verify would make a complete list. I was working from references that had 100 bridges listed and ranked. By collating several sources, I was able to make the list a little longer than that. So perhaps the question for this list is to look at the primary sources of information and determine if they had any cut-off criteria. If not, make the list as inclusive as possible, and note that there may be companies that are missing. Which gets us back to why I added the "incomplete" tag in the first place. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you would not (presumably) be the arbiter of this and the next OR-savvy editor who comes along, rightly or wrongly, could slap a tag on the page and threaten to take it to Afd. The non-OR, non-WPspeak savvy contributors here would then have a lot of trouble saving the article.

Companies with hundreds (and in some cases thousands) of employees are a lot more complicated than bridges. I wouldn't undertake the kind of work you have suggested, and I don't think anyone else will, so it's unlikely that your intervention here will lead to anything constructive. Of course you could take it on yourself, but judging by your debating skills, I imagine you are too sophisticated to accept responsibility for something as demanding as this . -- Kleinzach 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Divide list into subheadings

I don't think really listing by alphabet is very useful- dividing by continent or country would be more useful to the reader imo. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical lists have various advantages. Items are added on their own merit, not because of nationalistic competition. Country lists tend to encourage long lists of obscure and incomplete entries. We have seen this on List of opera houses, an article not as good as this one. -- Kleinzach 22:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well by continent would avoid the competition problem. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But what would that achieve? At the moment the list is a table so changing it would be laborious. If it ain't broke . . . -- Kleinzach 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Start a list of Minor Opera Companies?

It seems that there is much controversy over whether or not to include certain opera companies. Perhaps we should create 2 lists, one of 'Major Opera Companies' and another of 'Minor Opera Companies'. Major companies could be defined as companies which produce 7 or more opera productions annually and all companies producing less than that amount would be contained on the Minor Opera Company list. And in that way all opera companies could have a place of representation. Nrswanson 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I'd suggest doing it on a national basis so that it is manageable. How about a 'List of North American opera companies'? This could include the nine companies included in the present list, possibly cross-referenced. This list could also serve as a checklist for articles on American companies. -- Kleinzach 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea and I think it's a great place to start. Someday though, I'd like to create a master list of opera companies organized under continent and country. But better to start small first.Nrswanson 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you want me to set it up for you. I assume the title 'List of North American opera companies' is OK? -- Kleinzach 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please! Go ahead and start a list under that name.

Please remember to sign! The new article is here: List of North American opera companies. -- Kleinzach 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)