Talk:Opera Lyrica

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

University of Oxford Stub‑class

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as requested per WP:CAPS In ictu oculi (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opera lyrica → Opera Lyrica – missed off the capital L of Lyrica. Bari456 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability and other issues

This is a semi-professional "opera company" less than a year old. The article is written like an advertisement and contains no evidence whatsoever of significant independent coverage in reliable sources which could attest to its notability. If these are not forthcoming, the article will be proposed for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have drastically copyedited this article to remove the advertising and waffle and keep it only to the facts which can be verified. An encyclopedia article is not the place to advertise the founders' career aspirations, the company's availability for private functions, or their hopes to do outreach in schools. There is no evidence that any outreach or private function activity has taken place yet, let alone received any coverage in independent sources. Nor is this the place to advertise the company's future productions. I have managed to find two reviews of their second production in the Cherwell (an Oxford student newspaper) and added them to the article. So far, these two reviews are the only independent coverage I have been able to find. They do little to attest to the subject's notability, but at least they are better than the previous reference cited for this production (the company's advert placed on Classical-Music.com). I have removed the advertisement and primary sources tags, but left the notability tag. If no significant coverage of this company in sources beyond the student newspaper are forthcoming, I will propose this for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General - FAO Voceditenore

Hi Voceditenore, I just thought I'd explain some of what I've done here. Most of my edits are pretty self-explanatory I think, but I've removed the bit about Oxford Undergraduates in the opening sentence because it's no longer true. We did work with them for the first production, but not since. The second was still in collaboration with them though. I've also removed the reference to Paola and I being Oxford alumni because I'm still studying there and I couldn't work out a clean and concise way of saying that. By all means put it back in if you can think of a way! Anyway, let me know if there's anything more I should/could do. Is there anyway of putting our logo as a picture by the way? Might be quite nice; it looks very bare! Thanks for all your help! Best wishes, Nick 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Voceditenore, hope you had a fantastic New Year and good break! I was just wondering if you'd had a chance to read through the article? Also, is the general notability still in question, or can the header be removed? Thanks again for all your help, Nick 15:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]