Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116→Archive 120
Archives Table of Contents

The Magic Flute

This is rather far off-topic, but does anyone know, off-hand, which are the numbers in The Magic Flute which the chorus join in on? I've been invited to do it in translation, so I don't want to buy the score in case we just get given a translated one, but I've promised to do The Sorcerer already, and am trying to figure out if I have time for both.

My memory of seeing it a few times is that the chorus are just used in a couple scenes, but I know it's easy to forget something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have numbers memorized, but looking at this NMA: #6 ("Das klinget"), #8 Finale I, #10 echo of Sarastro, #18 priests, #21 Finale II, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't seem too bad. Eh, what the hell, I'll go for it. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Free access during May to International Index to Performing Arts

I'm passing on the message below, posted by Kosboot at WikiProject Classical music. – Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

ProQuest is offering free access to International Index to Performing Arts Full Text from now until the end of May, according to their blog discovermorecorps. Access to the archives of 310 journals . All you need to do is sign up with an email address and password. (although I think you can get in with this link). Please pass on to other performing arts projects. -- kosboot (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried out the second link Kosboot gave and it seems to work OK. Some of the journals have full text available. Others only the abstract of each article. Even so, that can be really helpful. All the journals on the index can be searched. Journals with full text available include:

  • Opera Canada - Winter 1993 (Vol. 34, no. 4) - present
  • Opera Journal - Mar 1996 (Vol. 29, no. 1) - Dec 2006 (Vol. 39, no. 4)
  • Opera News - Jan 7, 1995 (Vol. 59, no. 8) - present

Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

PS If Kosboot's second link doesn't work, go to the first link and click on "free access" in:

"ProQuest is offering free access to International Index to Performing Arts Full Text from now until the end of May."

Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nineteenth century tenor

We have no information, and nor does the web, it seems, on Jean Morère, who created the role of Don Carlos. Has anyone anything on him? Enough to make a page? almost-instinct 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Musicsack.com lists a few sources: http://www.musicsack.com/PersonFMTDetail.cfm?PersonPK=100187467 -- kosboot (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I had never heard of that website. So now we know he was 30 at the time of the premiere :-) almost-instinct 19:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This link might be helpful. Regards. 81.83.141.225 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
That's really interesting thanks. I suppose we can't use Operissimo as a source, can we? Would love to quote the Google Translate version of the final sentence: "Since 1871 fell the artist who seemed to have reached at the peak of his career, more and more deranged." Debuted at Paris Opera as Manrico at 25, sang Don Carlos at 30, career faded from age 35.... almost-instinct 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I bet that Operissimo paragraph is taken from Kutsch-Riemens (useful source but riddled with inaccuracies). If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to start something - though I'd rather start it in someone's sandbox and let that person be the one to official start the article. How about it, Almost-instinct? -- kosboot (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A little space sitting waiting for anything you have: User:Almost-instinct/sandbox#Jean_Mor.C3.A8re :-) almost-instinct 08:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
There's a photo here.
Grove's says his name was Paul Morère (also here). So does this site. And I found some mentions as "A. Morère".
He's mentioned here (surname only) under Victor Sieg. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 09:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Lovely. Congratulations all round. I had seen the photo on Flickr - shame we can't use that picture as it is of him young ie when he did the notable singing. Yours, still trying to get my head round someone singing Manrico at the Paris Opera at the age of 25, almost-instinct 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

On this day - did you know

You know probably that I try to find a fact related to the day to put on top of this page. Some of the articles would profit from improvement. I plan to list those here, not starting a new section everytime.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I've added her to the section at the very top of the page: Article creation and cleanup requests. It's better to list them all in one place, so editors can see them all at a glance. I never archive that section, although I periodically update it. So she'll stay there 'til she's fixed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • 20 Feb Die Kluge, 70 years, premiered in times of war. Orff did well to term it "Märchenoper" (Fairy tale opera) to evade censorship for text such as "Wer die Macht hat, hat das Recht, und wer das Recht hat, beugt es auch, und über allem herrscht Gewalt" (Whoever has the power, has justice, whoever has justice, bends it, and violence reigns everything). The article is too harmless. - The set designer just got a German article, Helmut Jürgens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Article requests

  • Opera - Ugo, re d'Italia - A Rossini opera that was left unfinished
    • Update: I think that I've more-or-less completed the Ugo, re d'Italia article with some pretty good sources at hand, especially the Andrew Porter article kindly supplied to me by User:Voceditenore. However, I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions.Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Aria

Getting back to the essential - but rather neglected in the present spate of discussions - issue of the quality of articles (rather than the quantity of their trappings), I noted the article Aria listed amongst the egregious selection of sogennanten 'vital articles', and was horrified to find a pile of utter tat. I have had a go at rewriting it, but this aspect of opera is not really my strong point, and it still needs much, much more, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Can anyone who knows take a look and do something please? Have no hesitation in scrubbing anaything I have done if you consider it inappropriate. --Smerus (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Bravo, Smerus! What an improvement! That "table" was particularly egregious and there wasn't a reference in sight. I'm currently attending to Dame Smyth, but if anyone else is looking for something to do, perhaps check Category:Arias for any mis-categorized ones. A lot of the articles on individual arias are also unreferenced with multiple links to copyvio recordings on YouTube, random personal opinions, uncredited (and sometimes copyvio) translations, etc., etc. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Royal Opera House event - 22 June

Following up from my post a couple of months ago, I am delighted to let you know that the Royal Opera House will be hosting an editathon, focusing on the works of Sir Frederick Ashton, to be held on Saturday 22 June 2013. (It's turned out more ballet focused than opera, admittedly, but I'm sure you'd want to know regardless...)

The day will provisionally include some form of behind-the-scenes tour, though we're still working on organising the details. If you're interested, please sign up now and keep the date free - it'd be great to see you there! Andrew Gray (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera infobox

This is under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. OP discussions leading up to it are archived in Archive 113. – Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

librettodopera.it

I've added this to the project's Online Research Guide, but just a heads-up about a great source which I just discovered, but has been around for quite a while...

  • Libretti d'opera, curated by the University of Padua, is a gold mine of information, especially for relatively obscure Italian operas and is very well annotated and organized. See this example for Mercadante's Nitocri. The site has directions and introductions in both Italian and English, but all the data for individual entries is in Italian.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A splenddid site! Just used it to add some performance refs to the Donizetti Il furioso all'isola di San Domingo article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this project have a policy on article creation?

I was at my local Meetup this weekend where I got into a discussion with a WP administrator. In short, I espoused the opinion that creation of an article should have at least a paragraph's worth of information in addition to sources. This administrator, as one of those who is responsible for deleting AfDs, felt that (assuming notability) all an article needs is a sentence and source to justify creation. I'm wondering how the project feels about this issue. -- kosboot (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Writing as a *user*, I would prefer a concise and fact-filled sentence rather than nothing at all, particularly when information is difficult to come by in English. Writing as a (drive-by) editor, I'm spending too much time groping around WP in other languages but am very wary of creating en:WP stubs that are unlikely to get expanded. Should I add very brief stubs (kosboot's "sentence and a source") for composers who are mentioned in in the body of en:WP articles, who are significant in their own countries (and who may have articles in other WPs), but who lack en:WP articles? Consider Nikolay Strelnikov .. a name I stumbled across in Comic Opera. He wrote something that I have heard of, and has an article in ru:WP but I'm not going to be capable of more than a one sentence article. Should I write it? Scarabocchio (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
A little late in my response—I was away until April 22nd and then got involved in some other WP articles. Anyhow, I say go for it and create Nikolay Strelnikov. In my view, even a one fact-filled sentence is fine, provided a decent reference is given which can help expand the article. Something is better than nothing, and in many cases, this is the only way these articles get created. I recently stumbled across Veriano Luchetti and plan to expand it. This morning, it looked like [this. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oratorio erotico (cross posted from Talk:Oratorio)

Apologies for posting this in two places, but it seems that this may bridge the ground between opera and oratorio so I'd like to raise the subject here as well:

I've just stumbled across 'Oratorio erotico' in es:WP and wanted to know more. Google search tells me that it's an established genre, being mentioned in numerous books in various languages, including the Oxford Companion to Music.

What was the relationship of oratorio erotico and opera? With its emphasis on the sensual and the worldly, is it an unstaged opera in all but name? (a way of avoiding the "no opera in Lent" rule, perhaps?) Scarabocchio (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

National epics

See Template:Aeneid, Template:Odyssey navbox and Template:Iliad navbox. The latter does not appear to have any significant operas, but you guys may know of some I have missed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The Pirates of Penzance template

This one is very short, but have a look: {{The Pirates of Penzance}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Be warned: The people involved with WP:WikiProject_Gilbert_and_Sullivan are extremely passionate. I would put this before them - and be prepared for them to either shoot it down or greatly transform it. -- kosboot (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Alcina inaccuracies?

An IP has suggested that there are some possible inaccuracies in the synopsis. See Talk:Alcina. I'm unfamiliar with the opera, but if any of you are, could you check this out? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tino Pattiera - Tino Pattiera.jpg

File:Tino Pattiera - Tino Pattiera.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Rescued now. I added a source and fair use rationale and changed the license to {{Non-free historic image}}. I've also added references to the previously unreferenced article Tino Pattiera. However, it needs copyediting for encyclopedic style and re-structuring. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Fairy-Queen

I'm not sure what should or could be done about it, but currently our page on The Fairy-Queen reads more like Counter-tenor propaganda than anything else almost-instinct 09:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a GA, so proceed with caution.....--Smerus (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Festspiel

It's about time to get ready for a festival. Tristan and Isolde has a nice passage about the fact that Wagner called this work not "Oper" but "Handlung":

"Wagner referred to the work not as an opera, but called it "eine Handlung" (literally a drama or a plot), which was the equivalent of the term used by the Spanish playwright Calderón for his dramas."

Parsifal has a similar passage:

"Wagner preferred to describe Parsifal not as an opera, but as "ein Bühnenweihfestspiel" ("A Festival Play for the Consecration of the Stage"). At Bayreuth a tradition has arisen that there is no applause after the first act of the opera."
(I don't know where that translation comes from. It's not the stage that is consecrated, but something sacred takes place on it.)

I miss an equivalent for The Ring, to be linked from the Main page tomorrow, and its parts, which Wagner termed "Bühnenfestspiel", as this list knows (which offers "Consecrated stage festival play" for Parsifal, a bit better). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerda!! The Ring???? I thought you insisted on echt deutsch for the opera, (sorry, Festspiel or Handlung,) titles? I am truly shocked. You are quite right about the "Bühnenweihfestspiel" translation, of course -maybe 'a staged consecration festival'? --Smerus (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to have shocked you ;) - There must be sources. It's so much more important what the sources say than what the composer says ;) - I would perhaps try "Sacred/Solemn Stage Festival Play" but I'm not a reliable source. "Weihe" is consecration, but "-weih-" is only derived, as in Weihnachten. - Let's distinguish the official title and the common name, there's a lot of freedom in common names. Wagner didn't say "Der Ring", but we do, it translates nicely to "The Ring". - Did you know that a certain opera has the title "Der Fliegende Holländer" in the German Wikipedia? I didn't know until today. I asked there why, but so far there was no answer. - Enjoy surprises and your day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
ps: I decorated my user for the occasion, "Starke Scheite" ("Kinder hört ich greinen nach der Mutter, daß süße Milch sie verschüttet") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

La Cecchina, ossia La buona figliuola

Is there a reason why this opera article is La buona figliuola? Shouldn't it be moved to La Cecchina, ossia La buona figliuola, or just to La Cecchina, leaving 'La buona figliuola' as a redirect? I see there are recordings under both titles. I also note that La Cecchina is presently a redirect page saying that the words also refer to Francesca Caccini, although this seems spurious as there is no mention of this nickname in her article as far as I can see, or in Grove.--Smerus (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Grove Music Online and Grove Opera both give the primary name as : La buona figliuola [La Cecchina], i.e., there is no "ossia", rather La Cecchina appears to be the secondary alternative name. Apparently there are a lot of other names that were used at various times. These are reproduced in our List of operas by Piccinni. Perhaps the first sentence of the article should be changed to: La buona figliuola ("The Good-Natured Girl") or La Cecchina ("Cecchina").... The other alternative names might be put in a footnote. (And maybe the other variants could be removed from the table for the sake of brevity. Concerning the redirect, I don't know. Just because Grove doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it wasn't Caccini's nickname.) Update: Grove Opera has a rather long article on the opera which gives La Cecchina, ossia La buona figliuola as a secondary title in brackets. (The names I mentioned above were from the composer's list of works.) Holden gives the title as La Cecchina, ossia La buona figliuola. Loewenberg says it was performed under the title La Cecchina with alterations at Bari (the composer's native town) 7 February 1928 (celebrating the bicentennary of Piccinni's birth). That is the first instance he mentions that title in a rather long peformance history. Covent Garden first did it in 1766 in translation as The Accomplish'd Maid. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Grove. I'm getting a little disillusioned with them after their recent series of whoppers. :) Anyhow, there are tons of reliable sources saying that she was called "La Cecchinia". Piccinni's had so many different titles, I suspect because impresarios just called it what they thought would get the punters into the theatre in that town. Almanacco Amadeus lists zillions. So every printed souvenir libretto is going to have a different title. We could title it La Cecchina (Piccinni), or simply "La Cecchina" and cover the issue with a hatnote: "For the singer known as "La Cecchina" see Francesca Caccini. You normally don't need a DAB page for only two uses. My own hunch (borne out by Google) is that most people typing in "La Cecchina" are looking for the Piccinni opera [1]. - Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, OK, I propose to move it to 'La Cecchina' with hat note as sugested by VDT, and redirects everywhere else; and to change the first sentence along the lines proposed by RA - any objections?--Smerus (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

From everything I've seen the opera was not called La Cecchina until 1928 and later. I suggest creating the redirects per Voce and rewriting the article somewhat, but leaving the title of the article on the opera as it currently is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
OK I will put this on my to do list,on the lines you suggest.--Smerus (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin help

Someone's just created an article on Lina Abarbanell (soprano) - can an admin move this page to Lina Abarbanell, over the existing redirect, please? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More admin help needed with a page move + clean up

I vespri Siciliani (the Italian version of the opera) has recently been created as a separate article from Les vêpres siciliennes (the original French version). However, it needs to be moved to I vespri siciliani (correct capitalisation of the title). That page is currently a re-direct to Les vêpres siciliennes, and needs an admin to move the new article to that title over the redirect. Once done, we also need to change the Verdi navboxes and to change redirect page I Vespri Siciliani to redirect to I vespri siciliani, and make sure that the links to the various redirects in other articles are going where they're supposed to be going. Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving and navboxes done, please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Nikki! All seems in order now, apart from checking the articles that link to the re-directs, but I'm pretty sure that in all cases, they were intending to link to the Italian version, so it should be OK. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Resources for 17th & 18th century French opera and theatre

  • CESAR – excellent database and image bank for French opera and theatre in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (in French and English).

Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hugo von Wilderer

Johann Hugo von Wilderer was created as a stub (with some hidden text) as a red link from a Bach article. He created several operas, room for expansion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the hidden text is now translation, but it needs citations - the typical German article. Grove is cited as literature, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect description of picture of Peri

Howdy. In the article for Peri's Euridice, there is a picture of Peri in dress. It's stated that this is Peri dressed to perform the title role of his opera. A few things about this: firstly, it's not necessarily a picture of Peri; this was a costume design drawing, not a painting. It may well have been made before anybody was cast for the role. Secondly, the drawing has nothing to do with Euridice. It was made for Intermedio 5 of La Pellegrina, for the role of Arion (which Peri did indeed play). This was in 1589, not 1600.

Since the drawing may or may not be of Peri, and has absolutely nothing to do with Euridice, I suggest it be removed from this article.

Cheers Alastair

<email redacted>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Alastair. I see the source of this image is this website: http://www.nndb.com/people/694/000097403/ - and the website does not indicate what it is. Alastair, what is the source of your information? -- kosboot (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Treadwell, Nina, "Music and Wonder at the Medici Court: The 1589 Interludes for La pellegrina", Indiana University Press, 2009. Don't have it in front of me, so can't you give the page. The same image is discussed in Palisca's books also. -- Alastair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 10 July 2013

Hi Alastair, I've hidden your email address from spammers. There are various views on what the image depicts, but most sources I've seen, e.g. The Grove Book of Opera Singers and The Medici Wedding of 1589: Florentine Festival As Theatrum Mundi give the description as Peri in the role of Arion, and give Buontalenti as the artist. I've removed it from the article and replaced it with the image of the Prologue from further down. Euridice (Peri) is actually in a pretty dire state with poor referencing. I just corrected a whopper which stated that Peri sang the title role! I corrected it to Orfeo, which can be referenced, but I haven't the time to do it now. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Peri singing in his own opera: I was under the impression this was true. Although I guess by "title" role you could mean he sang Euridice, which of course wasn't the case. The "lead" role (as opposed to "title" role) is that of Orpheus, which Peri did indeed sing. (See Palisca, Claude V, "Studies in the History of Italian Music and Music Theory", OUP, 1994, pg 448. -- Alastair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 July 2013‎
Orfeo referenced now. Voceditenore (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Things were not helped by the black and white version of the image, also on Commons, which was erroneously labelled as Peri in his costume as Orfeo. [2]. I've now fixed that description and checked all the articles that link to one of these images to make sure they aren't saying it's Peri in Daphne (or Euridice). Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work all, this is a great improvement. Cheers Alastair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 July 2013

Esmeralda (opera)

Esmeralda is an opera by Arthur Goring Thomas based on Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris". It was commissioned and first produced by Carl Rosa Opera Company in 1883. See: [3] The opera was given in 1890 at Covent Garden, with a cast led by Nellie Melba and Jean de Reszke, singing in French translation. It also was produced at the Metropolitan Opera House in 1900: [4]

Plot summary and some other info here: [5]

Does anyone want to put up an article on this? Note that an 1836 opera on the same theme, "La Esmeralda", has a Wikipedia article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Voceditenore (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For Gerhard Faulstich, two operas are missing, both have an entry in German. Help welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for filling the Blood Wedding with blood and life, Voceditenore. Now I stumble again: Wuppertal Opera, - we have a stub of the former theatre Wuppertaler Bühnen, but since 1996 that merged with Musiktheater im Revier, - I created a redirect for now, but it's probably not the final solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
After looking for Wuppertal Opera, I was quite amazed how many great people sang there, conducted, staged new works: it deserves a bit more of an article. We have a stub on Opernhaus Wuppertal also, the structure. Should we keep both? How to name the one with content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I've done what I can with the Opernhaus, but I've reached the limits of my and Google Translate's German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly, we cover the opera house and the company in the same article. But there is a lot of variation. Sometimes the article is named for the theatre, e.g. La Fenice, and sometimes for the company, e.g. Hamburg State Opera. On the other hand, Metropolitan Opera is about the company with summary information about its opera houses over the years, each of which has its own article. The Royal Opera House had several companies associated with it historically. There is a separate article for its own company The Royal Opera which was founded after WW II. De Nederlandse Opera has used a couple of theatres during their history. There are separate articles for those: Het Muziektheater and Stadsschouwburg (Amsterdam). In this case, I'd be inclined to cover the company in the same article as the house, Opernhaus Wuppertal. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with that but then it should have a different name, because "Haus" clearly means only the house, never a company. I could live with the common name Wuppertal Opera, - many articles simply state "performed in Wuppertal", - there I replaced the link to the city by one to the (redirect to the) opera. The German name of the company changed at least once, and it is for plays also, less interesting in English. Somewhere we need to connect to the world famous ballet, - I saw Pina Bausch's "Sacre du Printemps" there. - Thank you, Andy, for the house! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
In addition to Wuppertaler Bühnen (which interwiki-links to the German article about the company), we have Schauspielhaus (Wuppertal), which I'm currently expanding, and which is about the building (and interwiki-links to the German article about the building). Generally, I favour having separate articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Do whatever you both think is best. It's not a big deal. As I said, there seem to be all sorts of approaches since these articles "grew like Topsy" over the years, especially the German ones. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I conclude from the German that Schauspielhaus is/was for plays, perhaps chamber opera and intimate dance ('Tanztheater' is no ballet), and going to be closed this year (probably right now, end of the season), so at best "a" home, not "the" home. What about the company then, name and content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved to Schauspielhaus Wuppertal, for consistency. Poor house, last day today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Now I would like to add about operas and people connected to the opera house, feeling it should go to the house rather than the institution, but open to different ideas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'd put in the house article as well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Done, and (after Kafka) turned to Bluthochzeit. It's missing a synopsis, but I wonder how much we need, given that the play has an article, please help, also filling more red links for important German theatre people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The Opernhaus Wuppertal is known for premieres and revivals of rarely performed works, - there are three red links for operas to tempt you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've started a stub for Gormenghast. Managed to find plenty of sources and will expand it a bit over the day. Sounds like a fascinating work. For anyone else who fancies a foray into obscure-ish operas, the other two Gerda's talking about are Boris Blacher's Yvonne, Prinzessin von Burgund and Krzysztof Meyer's Cyberiada. - Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've turned the other two blue as well. They're both short stubs at the moment, but with enough references to expand them. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Impressed! Will look later, traveling, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yvonne: I added roles. Unfamiliar with the correct terms for jobs serving the Royals, I left some untranslated, hoping for help. For Kammerherr, I get Chamberlain (office), but that seems not right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds right to me, I've added that. The equivalent German article is de:Kammerherr
Fine! (I came from Kammerherr). Here is an impressive list of reviews of the premiere (p 382). Is it worth mentioning, or should we look for a single review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting reading in the context, thoughts by another composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think mentioning that there were a lot of reviews, or listing them is particularly illuminating, although I guess you could put some of them as "Further reading", for readers who might want to chase them up. The titles themselves of some of them might reveal a bit of what the critic thought, e.g "Maskenball der Marionetten", "Das Prinzip Oper als Schmiere", but it's better to actually try to get hold of the actual articles rather than guess. Voceditenore (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, but it's much easier to find reviews from the 1990s than 1973, - so far I was not lucky. Thanks for ce, - I am not sure how close we may get to the author's words, so kept it a bit "off" intentionally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Now I found a first singer (probably no major part), will keep looking, not report every single one ;) - different topic: the sidebar distorts the title of this page, - I would know to fix it if was an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What sidebar are you talking about? Yvonne, Prinzessin von Burgund only has an infobox, and I don't see any distortion. Re the synopsis. I've tweaked it enough that it's pretty different syntactically from the source. Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear, even more different topic than you thought, this page, project opera talk, the Verdi side bar probably sets it italic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

In the context: please look at Gormenghast (opera) (and history), for "genre" in the infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would leave out "Description" as a field completely. It's "field bloat", unclear ("description" by whom?), and in this case not understandable without reading about the term in the context in the article's text. You added that field to the template with the notation "possibility of a description, when no genre fits". If no clear genre or sub-genre fits, then it doesn't belong in the box. It should only contain, clear and unambiguous information that does not require textual context. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand, - on the other hand: how the composer termed it seems relevant and here even a good (!) description, - do you see a chance to include it, other than the one changed? We could mention that it is the description by the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Voceditenore's solution sounds good: definitely leave it out of the infobox (because that's for real genre classification, not self-indulgent description), but perhaps there is no harm in mentioning it in-text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, not everything that's relevant in the article, where it can be properly contextualised, is relevant or appropriate for an infobox which is a series of value-attribute pairs. For that matter, Puccini described his La rondine as "this pig of an opera". Anyhow, it is mentioned in the article that "fantasy opera" is Schmidt's description, but note that it's used in relation to the title of the recording of Gormenghast. Voceditenore (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, fine with me. - What do we do about {{Benjamin Britten}}, "Church parables"? "A Parable for Church Performance", not an opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to The Operas of Benjamin Britten: Expression and Evasion they are operas but it goes on to say: "The renewed collaboration between Britten and the librettist of Gloriana was to produce a trilogy of works - Curlew River, The Burning Fiery Furnace and The Prodigal Son - and to lead to the creation of a new genre, the 'church parable'." I'd have to read the whole book, but the implication is that "church parable" is an opera sub-genre like opera buffa. See also A Short History of Opera: "The latter provided a model for a set of three one-act operas with all-male casts, designed for church performance: Curlew River (1964), modeled upon [...]". Thus Curlew River should begin: "Curlew River is an opera (church parable) in one act composed by Benjamin Britten to an English-language libretto by William Plomer. Blah blah blah..." It's actually a pretty badly written article at the moment and needs a lot of work. Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! So far we don't have sub-genre, right? "New genre?" was the Gormenghast term. - Improving the Britten article - and probably most of the other similar ones - is a different job, should we look at it, for his birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, according to the documentation at Template:Infobox opera:
"'genre Generally speaking, this should be simply "Opera in X acts". If there is a referenced sub-genre, the linked term can be put in parentheses, e.g. "Opera (dramma giocoso) in 4 acts". However, do not list the sub-genre if it would lead to misleading oversimplification."
I know that Brian Boulton and Tim Riley have recently done a huge amount of work on Benjamin Britten and it's currently a Featured Article Candidate here. The OP could make improving the ancillary articles on his operas, librettists, role creators etc. a CoM in time for his birthday in November. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Just back from Buxton where I saw all three Church Parables (I already knew two of them, but had never previously seen The Prodigal Son). I'll be happy to see what I can do to improve Britten's works and ancillary articles, at least before I visit Bayreuth in August... I might add that Amanda Holden's Viking/Penguin Opera Guide has a very satisfactory view (IMO) of what constitutes an opera: Peter Maxwell Davies's Eight Songs for a Mad King, also seen at Buxton, is an interesting case in point. --GuillaumeTell 23:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Gormenghast

Thanks for your improvements. Schillertheater NRW (an organsation, not a theatre) was a merge of Wuppertal ad Gelsenkirchen that lasted only 1999 to 2000 [6]. Our closest article is Musiktheater im Revier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've restored that, as it seems to make sense. But the theatre wasn't mentioned by name at all in the reference you gave, and in mine it was referred to to as Schiller Theater. Incidentally, I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Gormenghast (opera). These kinds of things ought to be worked out on article's talk page to preserve an easily accessible record for future editors. Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

David Gamrekeli

David Gamrekeli, singer: As David Gamrekeli was the singing pedagogue of the opera singer Igor Morozov at the Tchaikovsky-Conservatory in Moscow, he must have worked there.. but unfortunately I don't have any documents about this fact and I only know the fact. Angelika-Ditha (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Premiere date of Robert Bruce

I saw the date of the premiere of Robert Bruce (opera) was given as 23 December 1846 in the article La donna del lago citing Richard Osborne's 2007 edition of Rossini. Several other sources I checked give 30 December as the date of the premiere. After changing Robert Bruce (opera) to 23 December, based on Richard Osborne 2007 book, which does indeed have 23 December, I decided to check Le Ménestrel (see vol. 14, no, 4 (27 December 1846)). This seems to say the premiere was postponed to the following Wednesday (i.e., the 30th) because Rosine Stoltz was indisposed. My French is hardly perfect. Can someone else who can read French check whether this is correct? Thanks for help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that. This article by William Ashbrook gives the 30th as the premiere (also in his Donizetti and his Operas). Ditto Weinstock's biography of Rossini. Ditto Gioachino Rossini: A Research and Information Guide (Routledge, 2010). Ditto Casaglia. Note also that the following week's issue of Ménestrel vol. 14, no, 5 (3 January 1847) reviews the premiere [7]. I'd trust Ménestrel and Ashbrook et al. I think Osborne got it wrong. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems like they also say that other Paris newspapers reported on the 24th that the premiere had taken place If that was so, perhaps that accounts for Richard Osborne's error. I'll revise my edits back to 30 December and link Le Ménestrel to say why we think Richard Osborne is incorrect. Thanks for the help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in the revised 2nd edition 2007, Osborne himself says its the 30th. See [8], p. 257. Where did you get 23rd? Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting. I have the hardcopy of the 2007 second edition and on p. 137 it says 23 December 1846. (And this is apparently what the editor who added the info to the article La donna del lago used). However, I just checked p. 357 (actually not 257), and yes it says 30 December there. So that's an inconsistency in his book. (Digital searching certainly helps to find things like this.) BTW, do you also read Le Ménestrel to say that some journals reported on the 24th the premiere had taken place? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
To my reading, it says the official announcement of the postponement and the explanation had appeared in the press on the 24th, and it then goes on to quote the announcement. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I was probably not accurately understanding: "Voici, du reste, le fait officiel tel qu'il a été inséré dans plusieurs journaux du 24." (interpreting it to explain Osborne's 23 December date.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think I see it now. The smaller print indicates they are quoting the official announcement, inserted in several journals on the 24th. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Category move

Can a kind admin please move Category:Opera Cycle (singular, upper case) to Category:Opera cycles (plural, lower case). Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On the off chance that an admin might not see this, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
As can be seen from the change of blue to red and vice versa , this went through the other day. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD: Annagul Annakuliyeva

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annagul Annakuliyeva. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Closed as keep, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Operatic Did You Know

Did you know that...... the (only) members of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement are:

    1. PumpkinSky (talk · contribs)
  2.  Br'erRabbit 
  3. Dianna (talk)
  4. Ched (talk · contribs) I'm willing to try to help anyone I can; although, I'm not the most proficient technician available. Chedzilla (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  5. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) I am here for company, and quality has a prize. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  6. Montanabw (talk · contribs) copyediting for flow, fact-checking, etc. Not great with technical stuff, but good at digging up research. 00:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  7. Keilana (talk · contribs) I'm working on core science articles. Right now, astronomy. 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  8. Wehwalt (talk · contribs), doing a lot of stuff.22:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  9. BencherliteTalk 11:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  10. Deepon (talk · contribs) Willing to help anyone with an article related to Wikiproject electronics.
  11. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) Technical soundness: templates, standards, accessibility and categories. Ping me if I can help. Also have access to HighBeam & Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for referencing.

--Smerus (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Everybody who supports the goals is welcome. I reduced your list to the active members, because otherwise your statement is not true. (Please note that in the project they are called contributors, after some struggle for the wording.) I fail to see the connection to this project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't edit my postings to suit your interpretation; the list comes directly from the present front page of the project, which must be regarded as primary source. I have restored it.--Smerus (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not my "interpretation". If you copy the list of contributors, then please say "contributors". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the scope of this project? It seems rather ill-defined. How and why do "quality articles" need improving? --Folantin (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you happen to know that every featured article comes with the line "it ... has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." - Also, we wanted to call it just Quality Articles, but QA was taken by Questions & Answers. Definitions are not our primary goal, articles are, please see achievements in 2012 and 2013. Define "need", please. Many articles don't need improvement, but can be improved. No article needs an infobox, but almost every one wins by one, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
According to its tagline, WP:QAI's focus is GAs and FAs: "this collaboration resource and group [is] dedicated to improving the quality of Wikipedia's Quality Articles, namely Good Articles (GA) and Featured articles (FA)." Also confirmed by the "Scope" section [9]. Then why is there this list of selected infobox disputes[10]? Looking at some of the entries there, I note that Götterdämmerung is a start-class article, Don Carlos is a B-class article as is Rigoletto. In fact, if the "Class" column is correct in that table, then only three of the articles (labelled FA) out of the 48 listed are within the scope of the project.
Because it's quite strange that 40% of the membership of Wikiproject:Quality Article Improvement has recently turned up at Rigoletto, a B-class article outside the project's stated scope. Not that I've seen them improving the article itself; they're all on the talk page pushing for an infobox.--Folantin (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a slight correction to Folantin. As Br'er Rabbit is apparently permanently banned from WP, it would seem that in effect 44% of the QAI project has been involved as you describe.--Smerus (talk) 08:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, your tone of this post comes across as clear attempt at intimidation aimed at shutting down all opposition and implies you are making some sort of vague request for sanctions. Are you somehow implying that people who attempt to improve the encyclopedia - and who have joined a team and openly admit it - are somehow a suspect cabal to be punished? I find your approach to be an inappropriate attempt at intimidation. I request that you apologize for this threatening tone. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"...[W]ho have joined a team" - a rather exclusive one with only nine active members (I've been informed Ched left long ago). Also, interesting use of the word "team" instead of "project" there. "[A]nd openly admit it" - well, it might be "open", if you can find it. WP:QAI hasn't exactly been enthusiastic about advertising its presence and I was unaware of its existence until very recently. Finally, asking questions about the operations of this "team" is now apparently "an attempt at intimidation".--Folantin (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I don't detect any tone in Smerus' post. Your perception is not supported by anything Smerus wrote. I understand his point was to (possibly nit-pickingly) correct the percentage of the members of the (oddly named) Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement (QAI) turning up at Talk:Rigoletto. I'd like to add that there's also some congruence with those arguing in favour of infoboes at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes and its subpages. But far be it from me to suggest the presence of a cabal project which travels Wikipedia in their quest to enlighten it with their version of "How to write a great article", something which the specialist projects could not possibly achieve without them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Operatic did You Know (2)

Did you know.... that User:Gerda Arendt has initiated a page under the 'Quality Article Improvement' project staking out proposed insertions of infoboxes, to include Falstaff (opera), Fatinitza, Das Liebesverbot, and many others, including Götterdämmerung, Don Carlos, Rigoletto and Don Carlos?.....--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And, as I noted above, none of those articles are within the stated scope (see here [11]) of Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement (with the possible exception of Fatinitza). --Folantin (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I listed - as a service for the arbcom case - pages where project members inserted or suggested an infobox, several of them reverted. We can't list all articles (which would include every day's featured article which we watch for vandalism, that day and afterwards). Please see "Goals - Improving and proper use of referencing, infoboxes and templates are areas of interest to this project." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I repeat, the "scope" says the project deals with GAs and FAs. WP:QAI is not listed as one of the projects involved in the RFAR [12] so why is it interested in the ArbCom case? --Folantin (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Smerus, high time you stop poking the fire and work to settle this dispute. PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not aware of disputing anything in this post; I am repeating facts from a Wikipedia project page. It would indeed be a provocation if I misrepresented them, but I note you do not claim that I am doing so. Having said all that, it would be of interest to see answers to Folantin's questions - either here or in the pages of the arb case he refers to.--Smerus (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Smerus, you are threatening Gerda and attempting to intimidate her and those who share her philosophical bent vis-a-vis article improvement. This is highly inappropriate, and I suggest you knock it off immediately. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Montanabw. I am not bullying anyone. I have not asked or demanded anything of a soul in this thread, save to aak our friend Pumpkin to answer Folantin's questions. You however seem to be attempting to threaten me with something; it is not clear what, but you'll be glad to hear I am not shuddering. Nor can I be bothered to suggest to you more apporpiate behaviour. I should however be glad to understand from you - in your straightforward, amiable, Montana manner - what standard(s) I have, in your opinion, breached. Thanks. --Smerus (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I was merely enquiring about the mysterious WP:QAI and its sudden interest in opera articles outside its stated scope. --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have the feeling that you confuse "a projects interest" and the interests of its members. The projects interest are infoboxes, not opera. You might assume "a projects interest" if many of its members showed up in voting in many articles. So far, I see two members supporting the views of two others in one article, one in another. If we get to more arguments like Fatinitza and Götterdämmerung I think we need a RfC on the operatic side navbox. So far I thought to tolerate two navboxes in one article, as described above, was a reasonable approach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Rigoletto (not a page within the stated scope of WP:QAI) I see a remarkable unanimity of opinion among the four members of WP:QAI present. --Folantin (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
We will define the scope better, sorry, we are so hopelessly unorganised. - Can you accept hat four people simply share the same view? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
So it's less of a project, more of a tag team. --Folantin (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, you can't change your "project's" goals just like that [13]. Plus, despite what you've done there, Rigoletto and Don Carlos - as B-Class articles - are still outside the scope of WP:QAI.--Folantin (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)#
I didn't change "Goals", I only justed "Scope" to "Goals" which I had missed doing before. WP:QAI assumes no authority. I don't know what a tag team is, nor IRC. Keep teching me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again, why are those two articles and 90% of the ones on the list outside the scope of your project (GAs and FAs)? --Folantin (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I said it before (forgot where): you see our scope much more limited than we do, "namely GA and FA" is supposed to mean "mostly GA and FA". An infobox can constitute an article, for example Daegu Opera House. Every FA starts small. I hope to see BWV 172 there someday, that's my scope although so far it's no more than DYK. Also, please don't tell me that a scope can't grow. What all this has to do with opera, is a mystery to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, so even stub-class articles like Daegu Opera House are now within the scope of WP:QAI? That's an extremely broad definition of the term Quality Articles. "What all this has to do with opera, is a mystery to me." Well, we're trying to understand WP:QAI's sudden passion for opera articles, regardless of quality. --Folantin (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You probably know that English is not my first language, but with you, understanding seems to be more complicated than with others. Infoboxes are of interest to QAI, no matter in what kind of article. Define "sudden passion": two members on Rigoletto, on on Don Carlos, both not even speaking as members but independent observers. As you know, Andy is pretty much on his own, for much longer than QAI exists. We have goals in common, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) So WikiProject:Quality Articles is basically just a tag team for pushing infoboxes on any article its members please. The "Quality Article" stuff is just a front. Four members (out of nine) have recently commented on Talk:Rigoletto. WP:QAI also hosts a sub-page listing a selection of current infobox disputes, with a notable bias towards opera and classical music. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
My passion for opera is old and known here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not an answer re WP:QAI.--Folantin (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
You will probably not understand, but I visit Götterdämmerung as a passionate opera lover, not a QAI member. (I saw the pictured performance.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) We're not just talking about Götterdämmerung, we're talking about pages such as Rigoletto and Don Carlos as well as the mysterious centralised list of infobox disputes hosted by WP:QAI. --Folantin (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we all understand that you, and I and I am sure Folantin and others are all passionate opera lovers. But the depth of our passion does not give us license to do anything we like at Wikipedia opera articles. If we can rid ourselves of the 'personality' in these discussions and stick to verifiable evidence, we will do much better.--Smerus (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I am trying. It's verifiable evidence that the links of the side navbox can be part of the infobox. The verifiable arguments about an infobox emitting metadata you don't want to hear, another verifiable term you told me not to use again or I would be suspended from the project ("I therefore suggest that the next person who mentions 'granularity' (yes, I mean you, Gerda), or who attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere out there, is suspended from this project for a period ranging from one femasecond to numerous millenia." - funny or not, I never quite found out). I don't do "everything I like", I do what I think is best for the project, for example insert an infobox on a specific opera rather than the same side navbox for all works of a composer. So we are back to Abraham ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it was no other than Pigsonthewing who (rightly) pointed out that there's nothing to prevent the formation of a WikiProject that concerns itself with those biographies starting with "V". The corollary was that a WikiProject's authority was nil. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm beginning to suspect that the WP:QAI infobox disputes directory [14] exists so "likeminded" editors can be guided towards ongoing arguments. See this invitation, for example [15]. Again, this is very interesting in the light of comments about project canvassing.--Folantin (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A reply on my own talk page, that's what you call canvassing. I keep learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's canvassing. That comment comes just after you had encouraged the unsuspecting user to re-open one of the most contentious infobox disputes on Wikipedia, a dispute which had lain dormant since last December. --Folantin (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You know that you are wrong: I had encouraged nothing. I had told that user that I might be banned if I inserted an infobox in the TFA, as people now try to ban Andy because he did that more than a year ago. The user's conclusion was his own. - Needless to say, I liked it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say...and the user's contribution to the debate was a masterpiece of cogent argument. Here it is in full: "Needs an infobox - Nuff said". --Folantin (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh please, and it's not WP:CANVASS when Smerus comes to this page about every article he's having issues with? (As seen below with at least two articles, with slaps and snark and personal attacks at Gerda?) Truly. Puh-leeze. This sort of "I'm Totally Innocent but Those Other people Are All Bad" attitude is one reason we have the whole dramafest going elsewhere. I have never seen more bad faith, bullying and hostility to change in any other wikiproject like I'm seeing here. As for "canvassing" - hardly. Anyone can join QAI, and frankly, where else is anyone looking at a comprehensive overview of articles - across multiple disciplines - that are being actively improved? The infobox issue is hardly unique here, the signpost even mentioned at broader MOS issues under discussion across WP, so of course it will be discussed elsewhere. Really, I cannot help but wonder if this harassment of Gerda is personally directed against her merely because she dares to have opinions at all, given that they differ from the dictates of the bullies here. Montanabw(talk) 17:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Anyone can join QAI." If they can find it. The whole thing operates completely off the radar. I've never seen a WikiProject quite like it. "I've never seen more bad faith, bullying and hostility to change in any other wikiproject like I'm seeing here" - it must be easy to maintain harmony and consensus at WikiProject:QAI if you only invite likeminded people to join.
WP:QAI also has some rather idiosyncratic definitions of Wikipedia terms. "Quality Article" now apparently means any article members of WP:QAI happen to be interested in, regardless of quality, from FA and GA to stub-class. "Quality article improvement" = adding an infobox.
I'm hardly the first to wonder whether WP:QAI is more a mutual support clique than a WikiProject. --Folantin (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No one has ever been told to leave and anyone can join, Folantin. And if you noticed the articles at QAI previously discussed, they include several TFAs, and topics include gems, Presidential biographies, coin articles, biographies of industry leaders, and stuff on racehorses. (All of which coincidentally have infoboxes, but that's a different issue) The idea is to get articles where people seek actual improvement and bring them to GA or FA quality. Our track record is excellent. How many FAs, GAs and TFAs have YOU been a major contributor on, Folatin? Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Anyone can join", but only 11 people have (and two have subsequently left, one way or another). Why is that, do you think? "Our track record is excellent." I've been watching your team at work at Don Carlos and Rigoletto. Those articles are now immeasurably better thanks to WP:QAI intervention. --Folantin (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, both. 1) Anyone can join, but someone against infoboxes will hardly find the harmony mentioned above. 2) If QAI was really the suspected tag team, 8 members would fight edit wars at all of Wagner's works simultaneously, canvass the TFA scene and DYK, where most of us are well known. 3) The article Don Carlos was improved because of the infobox suggestion with two infoboxes, one for French, one for Italian (only on he QAI talk, remember: an infobox doesn't belong on a talk page according to an editor whom I mercifully won't name.), - a lasting achievement even without an infobox. 4) I am not passionate about infoboxes, I simply think they are useful for the reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
ps: I can give you a practical example. I just reverted an edit to FA Messiah: wrong composition year. This would be easily checked against an infobox, but Messiah has no infobox because of the personal preference of one of its three authors. Messiah structure has one, Messiah Part I has a better one, providing even the days of composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
"Anyone can join, but someone against infoboxes will hardly find the harmony mentioned above." Heh. That comment speaks volumes. --Folantin (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The "volumes" is that when an article hits QAI, the collaboration is principled, the collaboration excellent, and the FAC nearly always successful (not that other articles don't get to FAC also, of course, but the point is that people cooperate over there and don't spend their time bullying people or starting dramafests). Infoboxes help make an article a quality article, though they are, of course, not absolutely mandatory for FA or TFA. But I need only point you to the QAI-supported TFAs of Yogo sapphire and Prosperity theology for non-music articles, and in music land Messiah (Handel). QAI members also were major contributors to the most-viewed TFA ever, Franz Kafka. Really, you should join our club and see what it's like to edit articles with only a view to making them the best they can be. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
(Fascinating box for Kafka - it tells me important things: that he was an insurance officer, the university he attended, his mother's maiden name... sorry, but I learn the essential about who the man is from the first paragraph of the article. And apparently his 'style' is pigeon-holed as modernism (box) or a variety (the article): very confusing!) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a myth that the infobox can tell you who the man is. (Nor can the article capture his genius.) The infobox can supply key facts at a glance, such as data on birth and death, which give a random reader an idea when he lived where. A field like "insurance agent" has been debated on the talk page. He spent most of his time as an adult being that. I would not mention style at all, but this is Wikipedia: please feel free to raise your concern on the Kafka talk page, not here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if WP:QAI has ever considered whether its infobox pushing doesn't in fact discourage other editors from improving articles. They've certainly succeeded in diverting a lot of Project Opera's time and energy away from content creation. I'd really never consider an FA Candidacy for my articles because I know that a long, tiresome discussion with leading members of WP:QAI eager to push an infobox on them will be awaiting me at the end of the process. --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Folatin, as I know from bitter experience. We must sadly recognise that some editors are concerned with imposing their diktats rather than working collegiately. To resist the bullies where necessary and ignore them where possible seems the only way to keep oneself from despairing. Best – Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And Folatin appears to be one of those bullies. No one has ever "pushed" an infobox on me, I came to see their value about four years ago. The particular WP is really the exception, not the rule, and their militant anti-infobo attitude is extremely intimidating to anyone trying to reform the status quo. I'm amazed at Gerda's raw courage in the face of all this. Montanabw(talk) 18:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems everyone who disagrees with you "appears to be a bully", Montanabw. This rhetorical technique is wearing thin, almost as thin as the evidence for such assertions.
Gerda has also stated "I think the author should be respected" with regard to the infobox issue [16]. --Folantin (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
@Folantin, if Gerda as "author" had been respected where she took stubs or starts and made them into very nice articles, some even GA or FA, we wouldn't be having the dramafest at Arbcom. It's the stalking of her edits, reverting of her infoboxes or infobox syntax that has been one of the big problems. The "we don't want an infobox, ever, lalalalalalalala" attitude here has just been a real concern to me; particularly where there is a really convincing rationale otherwise. Further, when the "big" articles get to FA, there is no longer one author, but often a team, and where that team has a difference of opinion, one person who has made good faith contributions to the team effort should not be threatened with sanctions just for making a good faith suggestion. (For example, in Yogo sapphire, we had a large team of collaborators, each with widely varied expertise - from geology and mineralology to history and geography to gemology and jewelry-making to wiki-syntax "guruhood." None of us could have done it alone). Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
My huge admiration for User:Gerda Arendt is on record, and we have worked together (and I hope will again) on getting articles up to FA. We disagree about infoboxes but respect one another's point of view. My problem is with editors who don't have such respect. I don't recall running across User:Montanabw or User:Folantin before, but I ask them to believe how worn down I and others have been over the past year or two by one tanks-on-the-lawn, do-as-I-say-or-else info-box pusher who turns editing Wikipedia from a pleasure into a dreary battle. Tim riley (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Tim, I came to say that if one person knows that I respect the author, it's you. I ask how you would think about an infobox, you speak ..., I drop the topic, remember Benjamin Britten FAC. It could be so easy ;) - Now you arrived here sooner, gentleman, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Tim, trust me, I know what you mean about parking the tanks on the lawn, I've had tangles with those sorts of people myself. (Personally, I have not had that problem with Andy, though. But then, I like a good infobox and respect his command of wiki-syntax, which is an area where I very much depend on other editors) I am here because I have, as noted elsewhere, just had my ears blown back at how mean people on these classical music projects have been to Gerda and how much they have made non-AGF assumptions that she's some sort of evil person - just MENTIONING the infobox issue on a talk page got some of this mob to threaten her with sanctions. She's one of the nicest and best-faith editors I know and if I'm getting a bit fierce in her defense, it's because I really have concerns about people who wiki-bully my wiki-friends. I've also been appalled at the threats Folantin and Smerus have leveled at me as a QAI member as if I'm the Bavarian Illuminati or something. Montanabw(talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Montanabw, as far as I can see, the only contribution you have made to Wikipedia's coverage of classical music is to increase talk page friction. This is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind when I wrote "I wonder if WP:QAI has ever considered whether its infobox pushing doesn't in fact discourage other editors from improving articles." --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I hadn't seen you around much, either, FWIW. QAI doesn't speak as a unified force and neither Gerda nor I speak for QAI. And while anyone can edit wikipedia, I do have some background and formal training with classical and choral music so I'm not unfamiliar with the topic, I just choose to edit elsewhere. (Similarly, I also happen to teach part time as an adjunct history professor IRL, but I rarely edit history articles, plenty of people over there too) Basically, I defer to Gerda's expertise on music articles and watchlist her talk page, and when it seems help is needed, I jump in. The issue of collapsing infoboxes and related issues arose, I lurked for a bit until I saw how mercilessly Gerda was being bullied, all alone against a mob with pitchforks, then I decided to weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 17:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
So Talk:Rigoletto was "merciless bullying"? --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure your point. Smerus bullied Gerda and Andy across multiple articles and talk pages, Rigoletto being one of many. I've lost track of it all. You're also discussing all this at the Arbcaom case, so it makes sense to consolidate it all there. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_114&oldid=1190143656"