Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106→Archive 110
Archives Table of Contents

Category:Klingon-language operas

Is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 4. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has been closed as Keep almost-instinct 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Beam me up, Scotty ;-) - Voceditenore (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

La sonnambula mess

Yep. It's now a dismbiguation page. Based solely on this conversation on one user's talk page between that user and an adminstrator, it was decided that La sonnambula has no primary meaning and the opera was moved to La sonnambula (Bellini). This has broken over 200 links to other articles + the Bellini operas template. I'll temporarily fix the template. But the administrator who moved it has said (my bolding):

"The only think that is going to be left to do is to fix all of the links that now point to the disambiguation page La sonnambula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/La_sonnambula)... since we want them to point the appropriate article, not the disambiguation page. There are quite a lot of them, unfortunately. I can't start tackling it right at the moment, but I'll work on it soon - though feel free to work on some as well. Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links gives a little more information about the problem of articles linking to disambiguation pages. Hopefully we won't find that one of the articles is linked to the majority of the time, lest we question the primary topic decision..."

I've responded on the user's talk page to this fait accompli. Do we contest this at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Or do we get stuck into fixing the 200+ broken links? Clearly the administrator is is no rush to do it. Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Bellini is definitely the primary meaning and it should be moved back there. There is no evidence this discussion - such as it was- was widely advertised at the places you would expect. --Folantin (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC
Support that view. We should request a move back, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested hooks for opera DYK

I just created an article on The Child Dreams and am hoping to put it up for DYK, but I've always been pretty bad at coming up with hooks. Any suggestions? (Also, should the picture I've included in the article be suggested for use in the DYK? It's not actually an image of the opera, but it's fairly relevant.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, nominated it, so let me know if you think the hook is good. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, and I now know a bit more than I did (which was nothing) about the composer, the opera and the play. Changing the subject slightly, The Child Dreams is said to be based on the play of the same name - but the name of the play is The Dreaming Child. In English, anyway, those aren't quite equivalent, at least not to me, but maybe they are equivalent in Hebrew? Also, something is wrong in the last para of the "Mainstream success" section (i.e. the one that deals with the opera) in the Hanoch Levin article. I could try to ungarble it but might get it wrong, so I'll leave it to you. --GuillaumeTell 21:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the snarl in the Levin article - thanks for pointing it out - but as for the title, I think it must be a translation issue. This translation of the play gives the title as "The Child Dreams." I don't know if the translations that give "The Dreaming Child" are wrong or if it can just be translated both ways - I do not speak Hebrew. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename of Ballet de l'Opéra National de Paris

Ballet de l'Opéra National de Paris —> Paris Opera Ballet – I have added a rename and move request to Talk:Ballet de l'Opéra National de Paris#Article title. Please read the discussion and post comments there. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

David Aiken (baritone)

An IP gave a death date without a ref, true? I couldn't find a confirmation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed this change and was unable to find a source to back it up. Should we revert?4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted it. It's much better to err on the side of saying he's still alive when he isn't rather than vice versa. The IP (which resolves to Boston, Massachusetts) left no edit summary, and all previous edits from that address have been vandalism. If he did indeed die on July 23rd, an obituary will eventually appear. Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Not long ago, "my" first died, Richard Adeney, my third article ever, felt kind of sad when I changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

August CoM and OoM

Per this discussion, I've filled in the July CoM with Menotti and Arensky (this month's birthday boys). For the OoM, I've picked some operas lacking synopses and in a couple of cases, just about everything else too. ;-) Below are suggestions for August based on the discussion above. August tends to be a pretty slow month with a lot of people (including me) on holiday. If anyone has a pet project or request, it may be better to save it for the September XoMs when more active members will be around. In September, we might also want to revisit the suggestion of working singers back into the the collaborations. (See also the Anniversaries page.) – Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

August CoM suggestions

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles.

Some of the following for composers with anniversaries in August:

Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

August OoM suggestions

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles.

  • A selection of 4 or 5 articles needing sections, sources, or clean-up from this list

Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

August CoM and OoM update

Per this discussion, I've filled in the August CoM with Ambroise Thomas, Yevstigney Fomin, and Jacopo Peri (August's "birthday boys". For the August OoM I've held over July as these weren't worked on and there were no other suggestions. Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

September CoM and OoM

I'll be in Italy from August 1st to 27th. So if we could get the suggestions in place by the third week of July August, it would be a big help. (See also the Anniversaries page.) – Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Update: For now, I've held over the August CoM (minus the two articles created this month) and OoM in the absence of other suggestions. Hopefully, we can come up with something new for October. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
September CoM suggestions

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles.

September OoM suggestions

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles.

Offenbach - copied from composer talk page

I am working on the main Jacques Offenbach article (backstage at the moment) to get it up to FAC standard. The list of non-operetta works will need to be hived off from the main article. Does anyone object to adding it to this article (renaming accordingly)? It seems unhelpful to our readers to have two separate sub-articles of Offenbach works, i.e. (i) operettas and (ii) everything else. Most grateful for views. Tim riley (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree - there is no reason to have more than one Offenbach "Works" or "Compositions" sub-article. I recommend adding the other Offenbach works here and renaming this Article "List of Works [or Compositions] by Offenbach". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Go for it. IMO all composers should have a single list, especially if done in a nice sortable table (like in Dvorak for instance). Unfortunetly various people have decided that operas and/for piano works, especially, should be separated out (or were made before the 'big' list). Incidently, I'm curious about your sources for the list you're going to use? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There are lots of articles entitled "List of compositions by ....", and quite a few of them (e.g. List of compositions by Vivaldi) don't list operas but provide a link to "List of operas by ...". It would be nice if there could be some agreement on a common format, but I'm not sure that this talk page is the right place for it. --GuillaumeTell 18:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A very fair point. Happy to air the question more widely. Can you think of a suitable forum? Tim riley (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Either WP:CLASSICAL or WP:COMPOSERS, as the compositions task force is basically defunct...but I'm not sure which would be better really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It should certainly be raised at WP:WPO, since the lists of operas by ... were compiled by past and current members of the Project. See Category:Lists of operas by composer for the list of lists, and, as well, the list of lists of lists at Category:Lists of compositions by composer. --GuillaumeTell 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And is now here. Suggestions s.t.p. Tim riley (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this sounds like a great idea. I wonder, would it be possible and/or desirable to make these into sortable tables Help:Sorting? Or does that detract from the "List" quality of them (which seems to be something quite distinct...)? It would seem useful to be able to sort a composers entire body of works by name, date, genre, etc. at the click of a button...(just a beginner's suggestion though! so don't pay too much attention if it's nonsense). – Lackingdirection (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In certain cases the opera lists contain useful information in prose format. List of operas by Mozart (a featured list) being one good example.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: In those cases where the composer wrote quite a few operas, I like having the opera table on its own page and linked from either the compositions list in the composer article, or from the List of works as a separate page. I don't see any overwhelming reason to change this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's more or less my own position. Getting back to Offenbach, who did indeed write quite a few operettas, if the "List of compositions/works by Offenbach" includes the operettas table as it currently exists, it will occupy something like 80% (just a guess) of the list, thus dwarfing everything else. On the other hand, if the operettas list stays where it is and is linked from the List of compositions, the "everything else" element will be more prominent than it would otherwise be, which (IMO) would be no bad thing. --GuillaumeTell 10:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the complete works lists do not have the detailed information found in the opera tables, which can be an advantage because it keeps them simple and easy to read. An opera table page could be regarded as a detailed subpage, rather than an alternative. For instance, we could create an opera table page for Gounod and just add "See also: List of operas by Gounod" at the top of the "Operas" section found at List of compositions by Charles Gounod. We wouldn't necessarily have to remove the simple flat list with dates and links which is currently found there, which could then be viewed as a summary of the more detailed page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked at List of compositions by Camille Saint-Saëns, which is probably a good example of what a sortable table with all compositions will look like. Although I think this table is nicely done, I see some problems for the operas. Notice that the date is the "year of composition". Even though the notes for the operas are not bad for such an all-encompassing table, they lack what I would consider important information, including the date of the premiere and location (company and venue). Also, none of the information in the notes is sortable in this format. If one were to try to add this information in a sortable format, the overall table will end up with too many columns, or even columns that are fairly irrelevant for other genres. Perhaps this more general table format, as nice at it is, doesn't really substitute for, and should not necessarily preclude, a separate page with a sortable table of operas. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Marina Poplavskaya

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya. For background to this see User talk:Margopera, the AN/I discussion Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat, and this discussion at Commons. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The AfD discussion and the Commons deletion request have both been closed. The consensus in both cases was Keep. --GuillaumeTell 15:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Current discussions of interest to the project

Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

New Grove ... is now [[The New Grove ...; Diacritics RfC was closed as No Consensus. --GuillaumeTell 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the current owner seems to be slowly indicating the name of the online version is Oxford Music Online - perhaps it will be eventually only of historic interest that the thing is/was called Grove Music Online. -- kosboot (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Suart

I just got to know Richard Suart, no voice type given in the lead, I guess bass for Cosi, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Baritone! Scarabocchio (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Although he seems to have done a couple of bass roles - Dulcamara, Don Magnifico, Dott. Bartolo... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Aren't a couple of those buffo.....;-) 10:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
In G&S he sings Ko-Ko, not the Mikado, the Major-General, not the Sergeant, and so on. --GuillaumeTell 10:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is not complicated. His agent says baritone: http://www.musichall.uk.com/artist.aspx?artist=24&name=Richard+Suart&category=Baritones Scarabocchio (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that we were wrong about his being a baritone - I'm more than familiar with the G&S repertoire and I know what voice part Ko-Ko and the Major-General are. Just noting that there's sometimes crossover when baritones sing bass or buffo roles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a fair bit of overlap between many voice-types (Cecilia Bartoli singing Susanna, Josephine Barstow as Octavian, etc., etc.), one of the reasons that the fach system always seems a bit dodgy to me. --GuillaumeTell 16:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Roscelese. Well, it's true that the longer route can be the more scenic... Scarabocchio (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Grand O/opera/opéra

See discussion here- inputs wd be helpful. By the way should the article be moved to Grand opera?--Smerus 16:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK help

Does anybody fancy weighing in at Template:Did you know nominations/La cour de Célimène? I'm having difficulty convincing a reviewer that there aren't any reliable sources that confirm that the opera hasn't been performed for around 150 years. --GuillaumeTell 17:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This nom should really be "saved", everybody welcome to find a sourced hook, that seems to be all it takes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to referencing guidelines

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats concerning new guidelines for formatting references. That page has very few watchers, and the discussion was not notified here. Once the actual changes were proposed, there was no further discussion even on that page. However, the guidelines were changed two days later anyway. If any members wish to suggest improvements or comment, the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats#References. In general, discussions like these should always be notified here with a link to make sure they have as wide a participation as possible. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the use of a semicolon to separate the subheaders. Surely === would have been better and more consistent (for the purpose of enabling separate editing). The "problem" of the Table of Content becoming too elaborate could have been easily resolved by using Template:TOC limit. Regards. 81.83.137.119 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It would be undesirable in many instances to limit the table of contents for the whole article to one level just to prevent the subsections of References (or Notes or whatever that section is now called) in the ToC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Notes section usually only consists of "{{Reflist}}", so does that really require a separate section for editing? I'd also like to point out that many featured articles have used similar layouts, in fact that is where the idea came from. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-retiring

Hey all. Just letting the project know that my time on wikipedia will be much more limited for now on. My work schedule is much more hectic now after starting my new job earlier this month. My personal life is also now taking more time as I recently became engaged. I will probably check in on the weekends briefly, but I am not likely to be creating any new content any time soon. I doubt I'll be gone for good, but don't expect to see much of me this year. Best of luck to all of you.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Try not to work so hard! We'll miss you! And congratulations on your engagement! --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your work here -- come back as often as you like. (I understand -- I don't edit as much as I did several years ago.) Best of luck to you, and I echo Robert -- congratulations! Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good luck with the new job, and don't forget to weigh in here whenever you have some free time. --GuillaumeTell 00:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
We'll miss your work - congratulations and good luck! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess you have your priorities right, personal first! Congratulations! Enjoy the opera! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Many congratulations, 4meter4, and a big thank you too! We'll miss you and hope you'll can check in whenever you can. All the very best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilma Driessen notable unreferenced blp up for deletion

Project members may wish to rescue this article. She is a notable singer per our guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

She seems now "safe", but "orphaned". - The "opera singer" on top: no voice type until way into the article, looks like soprano? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Grand O/opera/opéra again

Consequent on the recent discussion on Talk:Grand Opera we should really move Grand Opera to Grand opera - however the latter is a redirect page to the former. Does anyone know how to deal with this? - alas, I don't. --Smerus 12:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to contact an administrator for this - Antandrus, perhaps? --GuillaumeTell 17:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Ta, will do--Smerus 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Grand opera"??? Errrm .. surely it's a compound proper noun, like "White House"? ("Why is it capitalised throughout?" well, ... it's not a house that happens to be white, and it's not opera that happens to be grand. The words "white" and "grand" are not being used adjectively in these contexts). Scarabocchio (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
That is, the words "white" and "grand" are not accidental qualities. Scarabocchio (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
... unless, of course, the article IS about big opera, loud opera, populous opera, grand opera, long opera, etc etc where the subject is merely an adjective+noun, when all lower-case would be the norm. Scarabocchio (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
too late ! - done now - but n.b. Oxford Companion to Music, Cambridge Guide to Grand Opera, and Grove 'Grand opéra' all use lower case in their body texts for both words, so the precedent is more than adequate--Smerus 05:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough! Scarabocchio (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DAB guidelines

The discussion (mentioned above) as to whether or not Ezio (opera) should refer to the Handel opera led Michael Bednarek to suggest that I begin a discussion here of the project's title guidelines with regard to disambiguation.

Currently, the deal is that the first article on an opera with a certain title, if the title is already used for another thing, gets the (opera) parenthesis, while later ones have the composer name. I think it would be better, however, to have the one with the (opera) parenthesis, as opposed to the composer name, as the primary topic for that opera title, rather than the one that happens to have been created first. As an example, Cyrano (opera) is currently a new opera by a fairly non-notable composer (he's more notable in his administrative capacities), while the older and much more famous specimen, which appears in far more sources, gets more hits even considering that some people looking for it probably end up on the other page first, is by a notable composer, and is clearly the primary topic for Cyrano, opera, is relegated to Cyrano (Damrosch) because it was created later.

Does anyone else agree that this is not the ideal state of affairs? It seems out of step with WP:DAB.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The current guidelines do say "Normally, the first article to be created is also on the opera that is more well-known." To me, that implies that if the first article created is not on the more well-known opera, then the qualifiers should be reversed when an article on the more well-known opera is created. The relevant question at WP:DAB is "Is there a primary topic?" (And it has just occured to me that the current Ezio (opera) page really ought to be Ezio (libretto)!) --GuillaumeTell 21:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Singers

I "met" three singers today who need different attention: Hermann Becht is just a stub, although he sang in Bayreuth. Andreas Scholl is the opposite, too wordy, and how to find refs for that? Helen Donath: in her Recordings I linked a lot, find the beginning POV ("Her finest moments on disc") and the lists organized in a way I don't understand, some operas seem to appear twice. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ughh! the Donath lists are unreadable .. you are right about the obscure sort order -- can it possibly be by date? Not sure about the duplicate entries .. there's a Fidelio with Karajan and another with Bernstein, the Gluck Orfeo might be a duplicate, or just recorded twice under Solti ... with a singer of this longevity it's possible. Without some kind of evaluation, or selection, or description, I'd be tempted to delete both lists and point people to a recordings search on Amazon by artist name. It would be very interesting to know if anyone ever clicks on the links for "other artists also present on this recording" ... sorry to be of less help on this one! Scarabocchio (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, it looks like someone started operas, someone else "other", people added whatever they understood or at random, result: a mess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

AfDs of interest to the project

– Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you willing to talk about your project?

Hi. :) Some of you know me as User:Moonriddengirl. I'm not here in that capacity, though, but as one of my assignments under my contract for the Wikimedia Foundation, as its temporary community liaison. I've been asked to talk to a few projects and see if I can inspire some self-assessment: WMF wants to know what you think you guys are doing well and what might be improved. It would also be good if we can get some dialogue going on how projects can help welcome and nurture newcomers interested in their areas. This information will be compiled into a report to help understand the dynamics of projects and also to generate ideas for best practices for other communities.

If you're willing, I'll set up a subpage so we can talk without overwhelming this one and keep the conversation concentrated in one area. That page will be included in my report to the WMF along with my summary of the conversation (which I will present for your approval before submitting).

Are you guys willing to chat? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maggie, I'm up for it. I've been through the whole life cycle -- joined, got slapped by non simpatico unhelpful elders, left, returned, became enthusiastic contributor, edged into disillusionment and drifted off. I'll get involved with your project on one condition -- that you get four or so active contributors still in the project to lend balance and alternative experience (think of me as Henry Fonda sitting out the vote at the start of Twelve Angry Men :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I seem to be the current Oldest Inhabitant and I'm always willing to chat. Do you have a timescale for the discussions? I ask because Voceditenore, who is our de facto leader, is in Italy for another ten days or so. We could certainly start without her, but it would be good if she could (without being rushed) have her say when she reappears. --GuillaumeTell 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't want to lose out on Voceditenore! I conducted a trial run with the Milhist project that lasted several weeks, but if you guys are willing to participate I can delay start until the 28th (or at least closer to). My hope is not only to solicit opinions, but also to encourage brainstorming amongst your group, since that seems to generate the most indepth ideas. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be glad to participate but as I have a busy month would also be happy if your start was around 28th.--Smerus 17:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Fabulous. :) I'll put it on my calendar to check back, then, and hope that Voceditenore will be able to help. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Maggie, is this restricted to a subjective internal review of the writers ("how do we think we are doing?", "how can writing processes be improved?"), or is there any scope for installing some website analytics to also gather info on how the site is actually being used by the readers? Something like webalizer, or Google's Analytics or whatever? It would be (probably!) straightforward (for someone with a bot account) to add the script to each page of the project. It would be very interesting to install those analytics scripts to start gathering data, have a week or so on the subjective internals, and then compare and contrast with the objective externals. Most of your work is on the dynamics of writing groups, I assume, but it must also be tempting to have a wider view and/or reality check, no? Scarabocchio (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Small footnote for those unaware of website analytics: A script, a small paragraph of code, is installed in each page. After a suitable monitoring period has passed, the analytics software will tell you how many people came to the various pages -- do they come from the front page, a search engine, an internal link, an external referral (and nb which ones?) -- how long did they stay? did they go anywhere else? how many pages did they visit? how long did they spend on the site? It's easy to see that this sort of info could be usefully fed back into the writing process (AS LONG AS the aim is to give the best service to the readers/ users, obviously). Hmmm, getting close to jumping the gun on next week's exercise :-) I shall stop now. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response. I had made a note to myself to come back on the 29th, and here I am. :D I didn't think about checking before then. My work is very non-tech, because I am very non-tech. :) It consists entirely of questions about what you guys think you do well, what you think you could do better, what challenges face you, etc. Any tech innovations are very welcome! Since I am non-tech, I'm not sure what the possibilities are here. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm back from deepest darkest Tuscany to find that my UK broadband has a problem which won't be fixed 'til tomorrow at the earliest...grrrr.... But go ahead and start the discussion page, and I'll pop in as soon as I can. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. :) Welcome back; sorry about the broadband problem! --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezio

I have requested that Ezio (Handel) be moved back to Ezio (opera) and to incorporate that page, which has been usurped for a disambiguation page, into Ezio. There are more than 100 links to Ezio (opera) which all mean the Handel work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: Requested move not made, closed as "no consensus". All the previous links to Handel's Ezio which went to the new disambiguation page have now been fixed, though. Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Singers

I "met" three singers today who need different attention: Hermann Becht is just a stub, although he sang in Bayreuth. Andreas Scholl is the opposite, too wordy, and how to find refs for that? Helen Donath: in her Recordings I linked a lot, find the beginning POV ("Her finest moments on disc") and the lists organized in a way I don't understand, some operas seem to appear twice. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ughh! the Donath lists are unreadable .. you are right about the obscure sort order -- can it possibly be by date? Not sure about the duplicate entries .. there's a Fidelio with Karajan and another with Bernstein, the Gluck Orfeo might be a duplicate, or just recorded twice under Solti ... with a singer of this longevity it's possible. Without some kind of evaluation, or selection, or description, I'd be tempted to delete both lists and point people to a recordings search on Amazon by artist name. It would be very interesting to know if anyone ever clicks on the links for "other artists also present on this recording" ... sorry to be of less help on this one! Scarabocchio (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, it looks like someone started operas, someone else "other", people added whatever they understood or at random, result: a mess. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to archive this discussion soon but have added Andreas Scholl and Helen Donath to Article clean-up requests above. Re the Donath discography mess, it definitely should be pruned. The best external link to use in these cases is the singer's WorldCat identity page e.g. Donath, Helen. I added several sources to Hermann Becht which should make it easier to expand. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime I expanded Andreas Scholl in German, with refs. His "society" collects his performance dates and programs well, but I wonder if it is considered "independent" enough, therefore I tried to back the dates up be reviews, such as his debut with the NY Philharmonic (Messiah also!), to be continued and then to be installed in English. - I don't see a way to substantiate the older very detailed paragraphs and don't know what to do about them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-assessment launched

With your kind consent, I have created a page to collect any feedback you may care to share about your project. Feedback from all members is welcome, no matter how long you've been participating or how active you currently may be. I may ask questions as we go, but will generally try to leave you to it. When conversation has slowed, I'll produce a "nutshell" version of what I'm seeing to invite you to correct me. It's okay if this generates more conversation. We don't have a hard deadline here. I'd rather get a complete picture than a quick one. :)

Thanks to all who are willing and able to help out. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A good set of questions, in general, but ... I would have liked to see something on a discussion of the goals of the project. You ask "what steps could the members of this WikiProject take to help reach its goals?" but what ARE these goals? Are they, for example, to encourage and support writers, or serve readers? Is it better for articles to reflect the general level of detail in other info sources (encyclopedias etc), or does the current curate's Faberge egg (some parts excellent, some parts less so, some parts missing) work? Should a Wikipedia project be judged by quality of its best articles, or its poorest ones? (and does it matter?) How DO you judge a project? Scarabocchio (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Generally, the goals of projects are defined by the projects themselves. :) If the goals of this one aren't clearly defined, that might be worth discussion perhaps in the very section that uses the term. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It's probably useful at this first stage (in particular) for people to come up with their own thoughts and responses, rather than respond/ reflect other people's input. If you agree, then here are the questions for you to ponder before proceeding to the discussion:
  • How "healthy" is your project?
    Would you say that your project is thriving, declining, effectual, struggling, etc.? Do the members of the project interact well with one another? Do members typically feel welcome and included? This space is to share your opinion of the overall current status of your project.
  • What does this project do well?
    What are some of the best examples of this project's successes? This space is for exploring what your project does well--whether those successes are innovative (coming up with new ideas or approaches) or simply examples of successfully following through on established practices.
  • What challenges face your project?
    In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges that your project faces or has faced in succeeding on Wikipedia? These challenges can be issues that you have overcome or issues that you are still facing.
  • What could make this project fail?
    In a "worst case" scenario, what circumstances could make this project fail?
  • Where could this project improve?
    In your opinion, what steps could the members of this WikiProject take to help reach its goals?
  • How can this project expand?
    How can this project reach out to and nurture newcomers to Wikipedia who share an interest in the project's goals?
Scarabocchio (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to make sure that all of you know that more thoughts are welcome. I have proposed "nutshells" for the answers I've already received, but I would be delighted to expand those with additional insights. Even agreement can be helpful, so that we know that the views represented are shared. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Main project page revamp

At WikiProject Opera/Self-assessment, under How can this project expand? (How can this project reach out to and nurture newcomers to Wikipedia who share an interest in the project's goals?), GuillaumeTell pointed out:

"The other thing that strikes me is the WP:WPO page. One of our main industries (albeit now slowing down) is creating articles on operas, and a lot of sensible guidelines have been developed in order to give the articles a standard look-and-feel (I wonder how many other projects have as many guidelines as we do?), but the result does potentially look rather daunting and, I'd say, rather plainly presented (it growed like Topsy). Looking at other projects' front pages and discussing streamlining ours to present a more user-friendly appearance - with, perhaps, a more informative list of members (interests and suchlike) and more sub-pages - might be beneficial."

This is something that I've been thinking about on and off for quite a while, and his comment prompted me to take a good look at the Main page today. He's right—it was overly long, potentially daunting, difficult to navigate, and had accrued a lot of repetition as it "grew like Topsy". So... I have been exceedingly bold and completely revamped it today. I kept the essentials about the project to the main page, moved the various guidelines, members' list, etc. to their own subpages, and added a quick navigation menu. I didn't make any significant changes to any of the guidelines when I moved them to sub-pages, but I did trim out repetition, copy-edit some of them for flow, and write brief introductions.

Comments, suggestions, brickbats? There are a couple of outstanding issues... The revamp breaks links to guidelines in some old talk page discussions, inevitable, but in my view a price worth paying. I also removed the section entitled somewhat pompously Project code of conduct To wit:

"The Opera Project believes in collaboration and compromise. Edit warring is evil and strongly deplored, so please don't do it. Take the initiative and be bold, but if you encounter opposition discuss matters calmly, either with the user in question on the article's talk page, or the project talk page if a wider audience is desirable. Please don't indulge in a revert-war. Thanks for reading this."

I can't immediately remember the brouhaha which must have precipitated its addition, but strikes me as not only bleedingly obvious and "preachy", but also implying that other projects might endorse edit warring. Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Most basic comment: it looks far more inviting now *applause* Very minor comment: I think the "Guidelines and Resources section" would be more useful further up. Maybe just after "How you can help"? almost-instinct 22:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Supplementary question: could the notability rules for opera singers be linked to from the "Guidelines...." section? almost-instinct 09:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Great idea about the "Guidelines and Resources" section. I've moved to where you suggested.
Re notability guidelines, there aren't any that are specific to opera singers. In AfDs, I (and many other members) normally argue for "Keep" or "Delete" based on the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. These were, of course, written for pop musicians, reflecting Wikipedia's general bias to pop culture. So, in deletion discussions we tend to do ad hoc adaptations/interpetations of the criteria as they would apply to opera singers. Here's an example, and another. I could put together an information page about this for the project, indicating how the MUSICBIO guidelines can be interpreted for opera singers, pointing to some sample AfD discussions, and listing the options available when encountering articles whose notability is dubious or questioned. But bear in mind, such a page will carry no weight on Wikipedia as any kind of official guideline or policy. The reverse problem to non-notable singers being promoted here (often by themselves, friends, or PR agents) is also encountered when editors who are totally unfamiliar with the subject matter and cannot read foreign language sources, nominate or vote to delete a notable singer based on the number of Google hits they can find after a cursory search (or none at all!). That's why it's important to keep an eye on our Article alerts page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
An information page giving prelimary advice would be very much appreciated and useful, even with those warnings that the advice has no weight at AFD, for those of those wanting to create pages but unsure where the bar is set almost-instinct 19:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Shortage of references

All the external links for Cheryl Boyd Waddell are either dead or present no information about CBW. The links for Jorge Cano are similarly unhelpful. Can anyone find references of a more straightforward hue? almost-instinct 15:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed Jorge Cano for deletion. It is based entirely on what I presume was his original personal web page/blurb, now long gone. All "sources" listed in the article are mirrors of Wikipedia or each other apart from a couple which briefly mentioned him and obviously used Wikipedia's Castrato article as a source (a highly unreliable one in this case). I can find no evidence of any reliable sources for the assertions made or that he has had any kind of career, let alone a notable one.

After creating the Jorge Cano article, the same editor created the article on Boyd Waddell (presumably to give some kind of credibility to her alleged opinions about his voice). Note that the initial version was obviously a garbled version of an obituary, possibly at the college where she taught. I'd say she might just scrape the notability criteria via her recordings, one of which appears to have been reviewed in Gramophone, but all in all very iffy and might not survive an AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that CBW had been puffed up as a smokescreen for the ficticiousness of JC. almost-instinct 11:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added proper references to the CBW article, and knocked it back to only content that can be verified + added her recordings. We'll see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm delighted to see that Jorge Cano has gone red. And thank you for getting the facts about CBW sorted almost-instinct 09:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"Rescue opera" at List of opera genres

Kleinzach and I disagree over whether to include rescue opera in List of opera genres.

He argues:

  1. that he has worked very hard on the article and that his criteria for inclusion shouldn't be challenged
  2. David Charlton, in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, says it is not a genre
  3. the list should not contain "unhistorical" terms, ie. ones that were not applied at the time

I argue:

  1. the predominance of sources describe it as a genre, including but not limited to the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, the Cambridge Companion to Grand Opera, Music in the Nineteenth Century, etc. etc.
  2. that we do (and should) include opera seria in the list, so Kleinzach's contention that we only include contemporary terms is false
  3. that, while we discuss Charlton's contention in Rescue opera, the list structure of the article is not set up to deal with such scholarly "debates" (ie. one guy writing that everyone else has got it wrong), and, for the sake of the reader, we need to make the list as complete as possible

Pls. advise.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

DAB guidelines

I've archived this discussion on the project's title guidelines with regard to disambiguation as there have been no further replies since August 25th. But this is something we may want to revisit in the future. The discussion is archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

McCaull Comic Opera Company

I started a new article for this. Feel free to add anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Darkness and great light, Comfort

In Markus Flaig (s.a., DYK), I tried to translate the German writing of a reviewer. My attempt was improved. I would like to know - in general - how "Höhe" (high range?) is described best? height? altitude? something else? - In addition, same reviewer, Ulrich Cordes: "ergoss Ulrich Cordes seinen weich timbrierten Tenor wahrhaftig tröstend über die Zuhörer", in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Bright altitude" seems well put. As for the Cordes review ("Cordes poured his soft timbre tenor truly comfortingly over his listeners"), I suggest to omit such purple prose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Comfortably solved, thank you! Just for language curiosity: "licht" is now an uncommon word, more used in older poetry (or as a technical term), - "easy" would not capture that, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"Easy"? I think not. "licht" as adjective means 1) shining, bright (beim lichten Mond = under a shining/bright moon); 2) with thin growth (sein lichtes Haar = his thin hair); 3) inner measurement (lichte Höhe = clear height) – see de:Wikt:licht. Thus, "bright altitude" for seems most appropriate in the context of the Flaig review. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again. I forgot to mention that easy had been also suggested by the one who found the most appropriate translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ach! dass die Luft so ruhig, ach! dass die Welt so licht! almost-instinct 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia day at NYPLPA

As part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries program, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts will be having a Wikipedia editathon on Saturday, Oct. 22, as part of New York City's Meetup group. Though the day is billed as Wikipedia:The Musical (i.e. with focus on musical theatre), that in no way excludes topics that would be well-covered by that library, including classical music and opera. Here's NYPL's blurb: Wikipedia: The Musical!

You can sign up at Meetup/NYC's page, which has been renamed Wikipedia:The Musical for the event. -- kosboot (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Editors are attempting to require us to add infoboxes throughout the WP:G&S project. Does anyone wish to weigh in on the discussion at Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Offenbach: Sound file needed

The Jacques Offenbach article has recently been much improved and expanded and is heading towards being a featured article. You can add comments to the peer review here. One commentator noted that a sound file would be helpful in the article. Can anyone find or make a public domain sound file of, say, the barcarole and/or the can-can, the Gendarmes' duet or the doll song? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably still needed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Andreas Scholl

Mentioned before, I improved the referencing for two paragraphs, opera and concert. I don't see how to cite some lengthy other paragraphs, and I don't like the lead: "Fanfare says" - when did Fanfare say that? - Help wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Karina Gauvin

I just discovered this unreferenced blp. She is a notable singer.4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_104&oldid=1190140119"