Talk:Santa Maria (operetta)

Opera vs. Musical

There are many musicals from the 1890s which are termed "operas" on their published music (some works by Gilbert & Sullivan had this appelation). Based on the audiences they were writing for, and other works they wrote, I think it's pretty easy to determine that most are what we today would call musicals, including Santa Maria. -- kosboot (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree Kosboot. In general wikipedia articles on stage works use the genre identification given by the composer unless an authoratative scholarly reference indicates otherwise. Making a genre determination without a source veers off into original research. Also, Gilbert and Sullivan works are in fact operettas (a type of opera), not musicals. The New York Times description of the work as a comic opera would seem to indicate that Santa Maria is in fact a comic opera in the vein of other popular comic opera composers working in NYC during that time, such as Victor Herbert. Generally the works by these composers are labeled as comic operas or operettas and not musicals.Singingdaisies (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would have to strongly disagree with you, because the majority of musicals at this time were called operas. And they certainly are not. The criteria you cite may appear to make sense, but then you have to look at the historical context. At the time, there was no such thing called a "musical" but the vast majority of works that appeared on Broadway were musicals. I agree Herbert was writing operettas (not operas - he knew the difference), but look at the other works of the time - both their scripts and published music. When you've done that I'll be willing to argue with you. -- kosboot (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible your interpretation of the facts is accurate. However, wikipedia is not about what is true but what is verifiably true. At this point you have moved beyond the source material into original synthesis/original research. Find a source describing it as a musical and I'll go along with you.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained that the word "musical" rarely existed at that time, so it's as if you're asking me to prove that people knew about electricity in the Renaissance. I see that you are not a member of the Wiki Musical Theatre Project. Why not leave the responsibility of editing to people who know the field (some of which are high up on the Wikipedia level of administration)? -- kosboot (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be a member of a particular wiki project but I have worked as a professional opera singer, been in professional musicals, and hold a BME. I'm not exactly a novice in the field. If it is a musical like you say than there should be some scholarly sources to back up that claim. Perhaps a biography of Hammerstein or a history of musical theatre would discuss the work in that context. At the moment your conclusion is clearly WP:OR based on the sources provided.Singingdaisies (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Singingdaisies. The New York Times compares Hammerstein's work to that of Gilbert & Sullivan and Franz von Suppé, so Santa Maria should be described as an opera or an operetta. It most definitely does not fit the category of musical as we know them today. BTW, what difference does it make if Singingdaisies isn't a member of the Wiki Musical Theatre Project? Everyone can have an opinion. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I also agree more with Singingdaisies here. The word "musicals" began being used in the early 1990s to describe works like In Town (musical) (1892). A Gaiety Girl (1893; 1894 on Broadway), The Shop Girl (1894) and An Artist's Model (1895 in both London and NY), were all famous shows (on both sides of the Atlantic) produced before this one and described as musical comedies. However, in America, Gilbert and Sullivan-style comic operas, as well as Continential Europe-style operettas continued to dominate the stage. This piece was described by two sources as variously a "romantic opera" and a "comic opera". If it was really a musical, then one of Kurt Ganzl's books, or the books by Gerald Bordmann, Ken Bloom, John Kenrick or Andrew Lamb (or others) should say so. On the other hand, Richard Traubner's book might say if it was considered an operetta. Anyhow, a trip to the library is needed to solve this. In the meantime, Singingdaisies, I suggest that you give Kosboot a couple of weeks to chase down a reference. What a lucky work this is: two WP projects are fighting to claim it as their own! :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing. In my experience, User:Kleinzach has usually taken the position that American operettas should be treated as musicals and assigned to the musicals project. For instance, the Victor Herbert, Rudolf Friml and Sigmund Romberg shows are all edited under musicals project guidelines. I would suggest checking with him before converting this to opera project, as he is liable to send it back. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an accurate and fair summation ssilvers. I am not a member of any project so I wasn't trying to start a territory war here. I am not familiar with user Kleinzach, although if memory serves I think I talked with him once. I can understand why American operettas of this time period could easily fall under either the musical project or opera project. These pieces are often a bridge between the opera genre and the musical genre. I could care less about the banner. What more concerns me is that the article be titled correctly and have the right categories.Singingdaisies (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Singingdaisies, please do join WP:MUSICALS. It's not an active project at present, and no coordinated collaborations are ongoing there, however several editors have their own projects, and a number of editors monitor the project's talk page and do vandalism patrol, etc. I actually have created many of the musicals articles from the 1860s to 1920s, and I also focus on WP:G&S (and if you like G&S, please join the G&S project). Joining doesn't really mean anything except that it lets people know that you are interested in the subject area and would like, potentially, to collaborate on articles in the area. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite Ssilver. I will go ahead and join, although I am not sure how valuable of a contributor to the project I will be. I don't talk often with other editors on wikipedia, even on article talk pages. In general I prefer to spend my time on here creating new articles by myself.Singingdaisies (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown book used as a reference calls Santa Maria a "comic opera". See A+History+of+the+New+York+Stage:+From+the+First+Performance+in+1732+to+1901'&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1 209.247.22.164 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

To merge converstion from Oscar Hammerstein I's bio talk page: I quite agree that what is needed here is data rather than improvisation of a classification system. Comic operas and operettas certainly need to be distinguished from other operas, and any classification system that doesn't distinguish between them needs a second look. The score to Santa Maria is, of course, unavailable, but the hit song from the "opera" which had a "remarkable run" (in a Broadway theatre with a Broadway cast) can be viewed and downloaded from the Levy Sheet Music Collection at [1]. "Comic opera" it may be; fine art it ain't. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-hun, while I think your discussion is of interest, it has nothing to do with the question on the table, which is whether this is a musical on the one hand, or an opera/operetta on the other. What you are disagreeing with is the determination by the WP:OPERA project, long ago, that operetta is a genre of opera, and the way that project has treated comic opera. If you want to argue with that, you need to do it at the opera project talk page. There is, by the way, a separate category for operetta. Look at the Opera project article structure guidelines and category tree and then take up the question with them. All the best -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion here at your request; I will continue to discuss here: my point, which I fully understand isn't yours, is whether Santa Maria should be disambiguated as "comic opera" or "opera". The opera project is free to make whatever determinations it wishes, and they certainly can govern the way that project (rather than Wikipedia per se) operates; the fact remains that lumping together "opera" and "operetta" as if they were identical is a singularly poor way of handling categories: operetta is a subset of opera, and that subset needs its own category. A subset is not identical to its superset. And when a work is described in the references as a "comic opera", describing it simply as "opera" is original research; you don't get to do it just because a project would rather have it be that way. - Nunh-huh 09:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh your argument is totally illogical. A comic opera is a kind of opera. If this work is a comic opera it must be an opera. There's no other way of looking at it. Disambiguating the title as "opera" is not original research but just a pure statement of fact. There is absolutely no way that this naming convention is confusing or incorrect factually. Further I am not a member of the opera project or an advocate for their policies. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) is not a wikiproject opera policy but is an official wikipedia policy. Hence why this page is not categorized or part of the naming system of the wikiproject opera.Singingdaisies (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, disagreeing with you is not the equivalent of illogic. Find a reliable source that says "Oscar Hammerstein I was an opera composer" and then we can talk. No one with any knowledge of the subject conceptualizes Oscar Hammerstein I as an opera composer, because his contributions to the theatre were primarily in other fields. And the "policy" page you point to applies only if you assume that "opera" is the correct classification of the work. - Nunh-huh 02:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is not about whether or not Hammerstein is an opera composer. This is a conversation about the title for the article on the comic opera Santa Maria. Please keep the discussion on topic. As for assumptions, the work has been consistantly referred to as an opera from all sources so I don't think I have made any assumptions. (And yes a "comic opera" is an opera so DABing the work as an opera is not original research or a distortion of truth; that arguement is complete BS) I'm merely going with what the source material says. Nunh-huh, you are the one making an assumption/speculation that the work is a musical. Absolutely no sources yet produced have made this claim. Further you have yet to give a valid reason to depart from the standard naming conventions for operas found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas). At this point I am just repeating myself. These are the same points I keep making over and over, and frankly I am tired of it.Singingdaisies (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] you don't get to unilaterally decide what the conversation is about; if you don't like the topic, you don't need to participate. [2] if you do participate, please conform your comments to the requirements of the civility code, which doesn't include calling the good faith comments of others "bullshit". [3] you also don't get to unilaterally decide when a dispute to which you are a party is over. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any unilateral decisions. I am merely pointing out that your comments were off-topic here to this conversation. The conversation over whether Hammerstein is an opera composer is already happening at Talk: Oscar Hammerstein I (a conversation you started) and not on this page. That seems to be the best place for it since the cat discussion affects the Oscar Hammerstein I article and not this one. You seem to have a habit of discussing the same thing in multiple places which is confusing for other editors to follow. Hence why I made my comment. Second, I personally don't find tbe term BS to be offensive but I appologize to you if I gave offence. That still doesn't change my opinion that your arguement is ridiculous, ill-informed, and entirely based on your own personal opinion without any corroborating evidence. As for the dispute tag, I will leave comments on that topic at the Oscar Hammerstein I talk page where those comments belong. Please try to keep the issues about the Oscar Hammerstein I article at the Oscar Hammerstein I article and not at Santa Maria (opera) and vice a versa if possible. I realize the two are inter-related and that this might not be possible all the time but please try. Thank you.Singingdaisies (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title move

I just noticed that when user:Kosboot changed the article's name back to Santa Maria (musical) from Santa Maria (opera) he didn't actually move this article. What he did was a delete and copy paste. This action messed up the article's edit history so I have gone ahead and undone this edit. This is in no way meant to subvert the discussion above or assert that this should be the final name of the article. It was merely done to preserve the article's edit history.Singingdaisies (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way you did this messed up the article's edit history, too. It also removed the original New York Times review that was in the article, so I reverted it. 63.3.15.129 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... What Kosboot did effectively created two sepparate article histories. As far as I know there is no way to merge the two. The action I took preserved the much longer article history; including the article's creation. There were only 5 edits on the other page and more than five times that many on this one. As for removing the other stuff, I was reverting to the version on this page before the incorrect move made by Kosboot. I agree that those changes you mentioned with the nyt should stay. I was hoping that the original people who added them would do so for the article record here to be accurate. I appologize for making things too complicated. All the best.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the change by the anonymous user, which seemed merely to delete referenced information. If you have a legitimate edit to make, please explain to us what you are trying to do. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Yesterday I spent considerable time researching and cleaning up this article. I don't understand why the original review from the New York Times keeps getting deleted. Removing valid information isn't improving the article at all. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the change by 63.3.15.129 did not merely delete referenced information. It restored the better plot synopsis and the quote from the New York Times. Please compare versions before making inaccurate claims. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Edna May Pettie mentioned in the first paragraph? Just because she's the only cast member than can be linked? She wasn't the star, and it's not like she was the equivalent of Beverly Sills or Leontyne Price and is worthy of mention in the very beginning of the article. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reviewed this very carefully. First, it's worth mentioning Edna May. She did indeed become a big star in her time, and this was her Broadway debut. If the article was much longer and more complete, there would be a separate "history" or "background" section, where she would be mentioned, but in such a short article, it belongs where it is. Second, you are correct that the Times quote should be included in the Reception section. I didn't see it previously, because it was buried in all the bad edits including the deletion of information that made me conclude that the previous edits were vandalism. Besides, it wasn't deleted, it was in the Lead. Third, the roles and cast list were formatted correctly. Both the Opera project and the Musicals project call for the names of the characters to go before the names of the individuals who played them. Fourth, you deleted plot points from the plot summary. I have restored most of them and have done a copy edit. If you found any sources for this article in you research, please do list them. Finally, why don't you register an account? You seem to have some experience editing Wikipedia, and if you had your own username, you would have more editing privileges, and it would be possible for other users to be sure they are dealing with the same editor from one edit to the next. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I listed my sources yesterday and they are still there. Unfortunately Singingdaisies made a mess of the article's history when she moved the article so you can't tell which additions were mine. The Times review wasn't "buried" - it was in the reception section I created, you just didnm't take the time to read the article. There isn't any reason to talk about the stage effects in the opening and again in a production section unless you're trying to make the article look longer than it really is. Editors do not have to use a screen name to have "more editing privileges", their work is just as valuable and sometimes better than people with screen names. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I didn't mess up the article history. Kosboot effectively created two separate article histories and I was trying to preserve the much longer one. As far as I know there was no way to merge the two. Also, I think what ssilvers was getting at was the level of user rights you would get with a named account. There is a higher level of privledges for named accounts once they get past a certain number of edits and have had an account in good standing for a certain amount of time.Singingdaisies (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

J F Cone in New Grove Dictionary of Opera calls this an 'operetta'. As per Ssilvers, I think this belongs with the works of Victor Herbert, Rudolf Friml and Sigmund Romberg. (BTW Singingdaisies will not be writing here any longer: it was one of Nrswanson's many sockpuppets.) --Klein zach 08:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title to 'Santa Maria (operetta)' as this seems more appropriate and matches the titles of the Herbert, Friml and Romberg works. Hope that is satisfactory for everybody. Regards. --Klein zach 09:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've moved the article, but you didn't update the links from the other articles that link to it. Were you planning to take care of that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which links? Can you give me the details? (Of course, a redirect was created.)--Klein zach 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, there were just a few, and I fixed them. It's easy to find them: After you move an article, just click on "What links here" and then go to those articles to update the links. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've been off WP for a while and forgotten the routine! Anyway I hope it's OK now. --Klein zach 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I hope you were having fun rather than working too hard. Happy editing! Oh! BTW, speaking of Nrswanson, s/he did a huge expansion of the Victor Herbert article some months ago, based on two books that s/he had. I finally got him/her to specify which book s/he sourced the information from in each paragraph, and s/he promised to supply the page numbers, but didn't get to it, and later s/he was blocked, I guess, and so there are numerous cites in the article that have no page references. Do you know anyone who could fill in the page numbers? It's a shame for all that great information to be incompletely referenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which books are involved but I suppose it's unlikely that I have them. (I'll have a look at Victor Herbert later.) Unfortunately Swanson and his multiple puppets (probably 15 or more of them) left copyright violations all over the place so it may be better to take out the material he added. --Klein zach 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had a look at Victor Herbert. Nothing much to add except Inebriatedmind was another Swanson sock. --Klein zach 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]