Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 125

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127→Archive 130
Archives Table of Contents


Infobox opera made simple

I was bold and changed the template a bit: if you say nothing, the genre is Opera, you can specify something else using parameters "genre" or "type". Never was it easier to add an infobox, we have now a simple model: Template:Infobox opera/doc#Blank, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, you might make clear, for those who are not aware, that the use of an infobox is optional, and that to prevent alarums and excursions those seeking to add infoboxes to existing articles should discuss this on the articles' talk pages before proceeding. @Voceditenore:, we perhaps might make this clear in our note on the opera infobox on the project page, which otherwise could be read as a blanket endorsement for infoboxes - whereas, of course, as a project we are neither for them nor against them. Best,----Smerus (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Smerus, a ping works only with a sign. Also: how do you think the wonderful diplomatic wording "is available" could be improved? I think it's perfect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I make clear that they are optional, that no permission has to be obtained before adding one (true for all users other than Andy who is restricted), and that they are particularly useful when a bottom navbox is in place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Smerus, there is no need for anyone to ask permission to add infoboxes anywhere on Wikipedia. If they add one and someone objects, then the appropriate thing is to discuss at the individual article's talk page. There is nothing in the current wording (which I have tweaked very slightly) that could be interpreted as a "blanket endorsement". It currently says:
Template:Infobox opera is available as an option for articles on individual operas. If used, it occupies the top right position in the article, e.g. Valentine d'Aubigny. See also the project's Article Guide on the use of infoboxes in general.
Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I join your sigh actually, and I did not suggest, I hope, that permission was 'needed', only that consensus should be sought, so as to pre-empt any of the sorts of uproar we have seen in the past. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I personally think that as a matter of courtesy and prudence, one should run the addition up the flag pole on a Featured Article first, regardless of which project has bannered it. But otherwise no, it's bureaucratic and a bloody waste of time to start a talk page discussion before adding any infobox anywhere on Wikipedia. It's no different to adding or removing any other content or formatting to an article. If someone adds an infobox and another editor thinks it's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. If someone removes a long-standing infobox and another editor thinks that's inappropriate they can revert and discuss. In both cases everyone can enjoy the ensuing snipe-fest. My strictly personal view is that if you know that an infobox has been a major bone of contention on an article in the last couple of years, or you know that the article's main editors intensely dislike them, no matter how irrational you think that is, then just leave it alone, because, well, getting along with your colleagues and avoiding snipe-fests is important too. Conversely, people might want to ask themselves... Is the addition of a simple, accurate infobox so horrific and of such cosmic importance to the future of Wikipedia that creating an uproar is called for? Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's get real ;) - links to the infobox show that there are now 245 transclusions, most of which are real articles (some of course talk pages). If you compare to the list of Featured articles, you will see that all but one (a G&S work by an author I don't know, so I better be careful) have an infobox. You can see further that 18 of 19 operas discussed during the infobox arbcom case have an infobox, - only Joseph (opera) is left without, so be it. Viva-Verdi added one to every single opera by Verdi, before he died a year ago. Long live his memory and example! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: Thank you whole-heartedly for your common sense and understanding. I endorse your sentiments and wish to add only that it would be courteous before adding (or removing) an infobox to any well-developed article to check the talk page archives and see if a previous consensus has been established. Of course, it's good practice to do that for any sizeable addition of content. but previous discussions about infoboxes are normally particularly easy to find. Nevertheless, we should never be reverting good-faith additions or removals without a good reason - that is an equal discourtesy to those many editors who make changes to articles but are unaware of these meta-discussions. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tenor Dan Beddoe

Just discovered this article on a notable tenor. It's been completely unreferenced since it was created in 2006! 4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi 4meter4, I've fixed him up referencing-wise. A fascinating fellow. He had a lengthy obituary/biography in the NYT, which I've added as a ref. I'm not sure if it's accessible without a subscription. If not, and anyone wants a copy to expand the article, just email me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I've expanded it myself. Couldn't resist. :) Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice work! Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Lucia di Lammermoor

An IP, from Italy (of all places), is repeatedly attempting to overwrite the article, changing all the names to English, i.e. Lucy and her pals Arthur, Henry, and Edgar. The IP's now been reverted 3 times (me and two other editors), but I suspect they will be very persistent. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Useful new list needs some work

List of operas at the Innsbruck Festival of Early Music needs to have all the internal links checked and fixed. It was pulled over straight from de:Liste der Opernproduktionen bei den Innsbrucker Festwochen der Alten Musik. Many of the links go to DAB pages or are redlinked when the article actually exists under a different name, or go to an opera of the same name but by a different composer. There's also a lot of use ’ instead of ' which is also messing up the titles. I've fixed one or two (and turned the German text into English into the references section, but haven't got time to do the rest. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus some items on the list are oratorios, not operas. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that too. Some oratorios are now staged as operas, e.g. Semele, but are there any others on that list that have been staged? And what about L'Allegro, il Penseroso ed il Moderato (a pastoral mode and definitely not an opera or an oratorio)? Then there's Monteverdi's La guerra d'amore, again not an opera and not even a coherent work by Monteverdi. It's a choreographed assemblage of some of Monteverdi's madrigals. And I'm not sure if the title of the list is optimal either. Perhaps Operas performed at the Innsbruck Festival of Early Music removing all the non-operas? Or Works performed at the Innsbruck Festival of Early Music (keeping in the out-liers)? By the way, I've gone through and fixed all the links to the works, so that doesn't need doing any more. Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. It looks like the Festival stages at least some of these oratorios with sets and costumes, e.g. Stradella's San Giovanni Battista. I'm going to check some of the others. Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. "Works" should cover it. Even if staged, I don't think it's right to style them "operas", barring a few exceptions such as Handel's Semele. After all, there have even been staged performances of Winterreise, for example. --Folantin (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, Folantin, you mean the one with Simon Keenlyside striking attitudes and dancing barefoot? I saw that at the Barbican. It was... er... interesting. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I find it strange that Handel is linked the first time, but not later (correct as it is). A reader of the second section sees other composers linked, but not Handel. How about doing what we do in biographies: when the work has an article, we don't need to link to the composer also. Would avoid a sea of blue, and let the operas stand out more ;) - Title: "Works" would not be correct. For Peter Maxwell Davies, they (his website) found "Dramatic works", - how is that? Completely different question, but in the context: Mozart's incidental music to Thamos, King of Egypt appears in the navbox under operas. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I've moved it to List of works performed at the Innsbruck Festival of Early Music and adjusted the lead accordingly. Gerda, I agree about the usefulness of double-linking in the sections. Go ahead and add whichever ones you think are appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I must have a language problem, trying to say that I would de-link, and that "works" is too general (there will be chamber music and other works also, no?), how about "dramatic works". I am in the process of completing three Bach cantata articles to GA before Easter, - not available for this task whatever direction. Mozart? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean about the links. Well, whoever wants to monkey around with the links, go for it. Yes, "works" is slightly problematic, but so are "dramatic works" and "stage works" since some of the stuff was not exactly staged or dramatic, and to the non-specialist reader, those terms mean "plays". I wonder if List of Innsbruck Festival of Early Music productions would be better... Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a thought, but why should this list be separate from the main article which is rather short?4meter4 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it would overwhelm the article given the number of entries. The list is useful though in highlighting operas and oratorios for which we do not have articles, but which can be sourced if their productions at the festival have been reviewed. Some of the production entries in their archives also include the libretto. Anyhow, I've now added a bit more material to the main article and copyedited it for coherence. I've had Innsbruck Festival of Early Music on watch for quite a while. Since 2011, it has been subject to blatant PR over-writes from registered users and IPs clearly connected to the festival, e.g. this, this, and this. It could use more eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Eyes needed on two prima donnas

  • Abigail Kelly has an SPA who produces stuff like this. When it was reverted (by me), she created Black British opera singers and pasted all the drivel there. Needless to say, Kelly was the only person covered in that "article".

Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

On the first, I would simply find a sympathetic admin and explain that every IP that has edited the article for the past 8 years has been an SPA for this article, and that consequently it is in need of very long term semi-protection. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Normally, semi-protection is only applied for repeated clear vandalism or BLP violations, which is not the case here, and it's applied for a very limited time. On the whole, having several sets of eyes on an article can be just as effective, and even more so over the long-term in my view, since the IPs simply wait out the semi-protection. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
That's why I said longterm, and sympathetic admin. There's many an admin who, when approached individually, has semi-protected an article for six months or more when it is the subject of targeted disruptive POV SPA editing, especially for as long as this one has been. Softlavender (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there a particular admin you would suggest approaching Softlavender? The worst anyone can say is no.4meter4 (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't Voceditenore an admin? - kosboot (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yikes no, kosboot. I wield only metaphorical pens—not mops . At the moment things are quiet in both articles. If it starts up again, I know a couple of admins I can ask. Voceditenore (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
All hail Voceditenore! In terms of admins, I'd hate to put any admin on the spot and would generally suggest that one approach an admin whom one has some friendly relations with (assuming that the case is clearcut and not just a "please back me up on my opinion" thing -- one obviously does not want to employ cronyism to "get one's way" on Wikipedia). In terms of admins whom I've seen semi-protect articles longterm, NawlinWiki and Acroterion come to mind -- but don't say I sent you; I barely know them and haven't really interacted with them more than once. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I think also @Nikkimaria: is an admin, who sometimes deals with classical music. - kosboot (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
No I'm not, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and semiprotected Diletta Rizzo Marin for a year -- seems entirely reasonable considering the kind of edits it's been getting, and where from. Wasn't sure what to do with the other -- I put it on my watchlist for now. The editor has been warned. You can ping me if you need an admin - this page is on my watchlist but I don't always read everything. Antandrus (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. I suspect that the editor at Abigail Kelly will probably cut it out after my note on her talk page. The main problem with Diletta Rizzo Marin was that IPs (in general) constantly change, even when they're the same person. Thus, it's virtually impossible to communicate with them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Current AfDs

Result: Delete
Result: No consensus

Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8

Newsletter • March / April 2016

This month:

Transclude article requests anywhere on Wikipedia

In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.

Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)

With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!

Help us build our list!

The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.

If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.

An open database means new tools

WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.

And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.

Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!

On the horizon
  • The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
  • The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ferruccio Busoni

I've initiated a peer review for Busoni and would welcome all or any constructive comments. I'm hoping to get it up to GA but am presently feeling a bit blocked with it - what does it need?--Smerus (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed Opera articles

If anyone is looking for some useful but relatively undemanding donkey work, this category needs to be ideally empty. There are currently 111 unassessed articles. I'll be working on reducing the category, but all help would be greatly appreciated. Since the category updates each time an article receives an assessment, there's little danger of overlapping work. When assessing, also check that the article is truly under the project's scope. Sometimes I find the banner on old theatres (especially in the US) which are called "X Opera House" but never actually saw or see opera performances on a regular basis and on pop singers who once took opera singing lessons or covered an aria on one of their recordings but have never once sung in an opera in an opera house. Voceditenore (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

June's Opera and Composer of the Month

There were no suggestions for May, so I just went ahead and filled them in. May's Composer of the Month is Werner Egk and his red-linked operas. May's Operas of the Month are red-linked baroque operas by Hasse, Cesti, and Conti, all of which received modern performances the Innsbruck Festival of Early Music.

Any suggestions for June? Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

We lack an article on Darius Milhaud’s L’Orestie D’Eschyle which was recorded in entirety by Naxos in 2015; a recording which was nominated for a Grammy Award. Perhaps there are some other Milhaud related articles we could create as well? I see some other red linked operas at List of compositions by Darius Milhaud. 4meter4 (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, 4meter4! I made him CoM for June and held over May's red-linked OoMs for June as I'm still meaning to get to them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

July's Opera and Composer of the Month

Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Busoni GA review

I've now nominated Ferruccio Busoni for GA review and welcome all and any comments and contributions there - also someone willing to start it!.Smerus (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors may care to take a look here where Mr. Schonken has, in the course of a discussion on lists of composers' works, moved to insert an arbitrary list of Busoni's compositions into the main article. For reasons which I set out there, I am opposed to this suggestion - particularly as GA review has been moved some time ago and is still awaited. ---Smerus (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Just the opposite: the list reflects mostly the articles mentioned in the biography, so would be kind of a duplication. - Smerus, I think as the person to nominate Busoni for GA, you could simply remove the merge idea. It's not the first one: an attempt to merge two works lists dates from April 3, with no action following, which translates to me to no interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, as both you and I have some 'interest' in the article(s), it is my opinion that Mr. Schonken, who has resisted hints to remove the merge, would seek to create a fuss if I or you intervened WP:BOLDly. As I am known by you and others to be a peaceable soul :-) I would seek to await comments from others (if any). Or we can leave it alone and it could well lapse after a week.--Smerus (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We leave it alone, but it is already not uncontested. I made the mistake to just ignore this merge request (at least it was also on the talk, as every merge request should be), and have now no time deal with with what happened then, because I am in the process of writing a FA. Btw, Busoni doesn't show as a GAN in the alerts, - I asked why, if it's a problem of the bot or the nom. Also asked two prolific reviewers. All this has nothing to do with opera, but is a bit operatic, - have mercy please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my latest suggestion for a recast of the "works" article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Busoni specifically: an agreement on the principle (or something similar to make an alternative list of Busoni compositions viable), would of course make the merge suggestion obsolete. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, that worked well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The article move worked well, but not to leave simply the previous name as a redirect to it seems confusing readers, - or am I the only one to think so? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Singer's name?

Kari Løvaas, should she have her Norwegian name, or Lövaas as the German spelled it where she had her early career, or Lovaas as Bach cantatas has it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerda, do you mean Bach-Cantatas.com? They also have Kari Lövaas [1]. The Norwegian Wikipedia article is weird. They spell her surname "Løvaas" in the title but "Lövaas" in the lead sentence. If I were creating the article here, I'd probably go for the Norwegian form with a redirect from Kari Lövaas. But, it's really a toss-up. As long as the readers find her, it doesn't matter much. Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The article was now created, Norwegian, translated by LouisAlain, but most sources have the Lövaas variety. Move? Please see also other questions on the article talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
On most articles where she is mentioned, she is mentioned Lövaas. I tend to move, and will do so on Sunday if there's no objection, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Majeski

Hello. Please expand Amanda Majeski with in-line citations if you can. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I due Foscari recording

Additional recording: I won't add this, because I would botch formatting, but there is an additional recording of I due Foscari to those mentioned here (I am listening to this as I write): by the Orchestra E Coro Del Teatro La Fenice Di Venezia, Tullio Serafin conducting, issued on the Hallmark label in 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulAlanLevy (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi PaulAlanLevy, I moved this here where it's more visible. Thanks for letting us know and thanks to Michael Bednarek who's now added it to the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9

Newsletter • May / June 2016

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!

Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

De Temporum Fine Comoedia

De Temporum Fine Comoedia, or should it be De temporum fine comœdia, as the Orff website says? "All capitals" is not typical for Latin (French, Italian ...). I gave the composer a navbox, and think both biography and works might profit from attention ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote in October 2013 at Talk:De Temporum Fine Comoedia, the article ought to be moved to the lower-case version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's De temporum fine comoedia now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Especially:

Daniel Ochoa

Perhaps someone could check this for notability, and for references? - a number of the links listed seem dead.--Smerus (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Smerus. He's notable enough, given his recordings [2]. I fixed 2 of the 3 broken links and found a print reference for the American Organist article in the third one. See also here on BBC Radio 3 where they broadcast Der Wildschutz with him in lead baritone role of Count von Eberbach. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, many thanks VdT.--Smerus (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Nessun Dorma and Donald Trump

Now this is a truly interesting bit about its "cultural references", but would no doubt lead to a firestorm. Nevertheless, here it is for your collective delectation...

Voceditenore (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well that guy from Iran did come to a rather nasty end ... oh never mind. Shouldn't go there. Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Selections from Götterdämmerung might be more appropriate for him.....Smerus (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rudolf Rojahn

The recent removal of all content at Rudolf Rojahn and conversion into a REDIRECT to Guerilla Opera, without any transfer of content, seems like a speedy delete. It should have been taken to WP:AFD. I have no interest in the article, but I think proper process ought to be followed. I've raised the matter at Talk:Rudolf Rojahn and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted, so that discussion can take place.--Smerus (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: now nominated for AfD by User:Michig.--Smerus (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Filip Bandžak

Dear Opera Fans,

Thank you for your attention and reading my calling for saving the article opera singer Filip Bandžak on English Wikipédia. This young, talented and notable opera singer who has performed all in the world and also in my native country, Hungary, I have thought, is worth creating Wiki articles. Unfortunately, in English wikipedia this article is offended and some of editors (I think it's only the minority) think that this article should be delated, see the link below:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filip Bandžak

Please help me and let's save this musician article. I hope you can vote for keeping. Thank you. Borgatya (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Threepenny Opera opera?

Discussions whether The Threepenny Opera is indeed an opera took place in June 2007 and January 2009. There were arguments in both directions, 3 in favour, 1 against in 2007; 4 in favour, 2 against in 2009. The arguments in favour cited several opera reference works which list it, the argument against in 2007 was that it doesn't sound like an opera and is performed in venues other than opera houses, in 2009 that a) it just isn't; b) it's an important piece of theatre history; and c) doesn't conform with OED's definition of "opera", which I just looked up: "A dramatic musical work in which singing forms an essential part, chiefly consisting of recitatives, arias, and choruses, with orchestral accompaniment; a performance of such a work; a libretto or musical score for such a work."

Today, without discussion, one of the opponents from 2009, User:DionysosProteus, removed all opera-related categories: (long) diff, edit summary: "Reordering and cats". I don't see why several classes of categories – theatre, musical theatre,opera – can't all be applied here, in part because banners for projects of those areas are on the article's talk page, and of course because of the for arguments in previous discussions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Just revert. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are, I assume inadvertently, misrepresenting the source. Grove does not say that it's an opera. On the contrary, in the list of "Operas, Operettas, Musicals and Ballets", it is described as "play with music". (Grove 1980 v.20, 309). The arguments against calling it an opera are that, as the image in the article states unambiguously, as does the lede, that it is a "play with music", or a musical. The categorisation in place is OR. A search on Youtube for recordings offers a common-sense based definition as well. No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera. Our article ought not to mislead its readers with a false categorisation, regardless of a Wikiproject's (false) sense of ownership.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Michael Bednarek and Johnbod on this. "No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera"? I'd like to see a source for this if it is a serious argument. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. Oxford Music Online cites Hans Keller as describing the work as follows : ‘the weightiest possible lowbrow opera for highbrows and the most full-blooded highbrow musical for lowbrows’. If Keller can imagine it as an opera that's good enough for me. That doesn't stop it being other things as well, as course, but there is no case here for Wiki-Puritanism. OMO also says by the way "Rather than carry the drama forward the music stops the action in its tracks in a way comparable to opera seria." So of course it should be categroized as an opera along with any other appropriate categorizations.--Smerus (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
What nonsense! It is always included in reference works on opera, which of course in no way precludes it being in other works on plays. Many early operas have similar forms. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Antony and Cleopatra has comic elements, without it being a comedy. There are forty sources on the talk page for your perusal that should clear up the confusion.  • DP •  {huh?} 00:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No they don't - we can't see what they say, and they are nearly all books on musicals etc claiming it as their own, as equivalent books on opera also do. Not all as RSs either. No one is asking that musicals categories are removed. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I selected each and every one of the more than forty sources, all of which are reliable, third-party sources, on Google books, precisely so that you could. If I was able to confirm that each one said that it is a musical, then so, too, are you. I have not selected sources from an academic library for precisely that reason--though the overwhelming majority there, too, would concur. You are welcome to provide a list of sources that explicitly say that it is an opera, if you are able to locate them. The categorisation indicated by the general scholarly consensus is Category:Musicals by Kurt Weill. You are welcome, too, to indicate which specific sources in that long list are unreliable and why, too.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that DP just doesn't understand that a topic may belong to more than one category. The 'ownership' aspect of this discussion is entirely on his side. The fact that he selected 40 sources so as to reinforce his own view makes this clear. No one in this project has argued that the article should be categorised exclusively as opera. I refer again to the quote from the respected music critic Hans Keller which I cite above - indicating that the work can be viewed (and heard) both as an opera and a musical - which I think effectively closes the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It took me one second to find this about the work in question in The Faber Pocket Guide to Opera, by the oepra critic Rupert Christiansen.--Smerus (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: Has the work ever been, or been widely, performed in standard opera venues? Such as, the Met, the ROH, the standard continental European opera venues such as La Scala, Vienna State Opera, major German opera houses, etc.? That's generally one way we determine the difference between musicals, operettas, and operas. Some works are indeed crossovers and have been performed in both or all three types of venues (e.g. Candide, Treemonisha, Trouble in Tahiti, some Viennese operettas, some Gilbert and Sullivan works, etc.). I'd say it's fairly clear that if a major work has never been performed at an opera house, it is not an opera. I'm not trying to fan the dispute here, but I think this is an issue that may merit re-visiting, with an actual RFC rather than an endless inconclusive thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I elaborated a bit on that aspect of the discussion at Talk:The Threepenny Opera, but that line seems a bit pointless to me. Opera houses perform musical theatre works quite regularly; is My Fair Lady now an opera that it's been given at the Sydney Opera House? OTOH, if a opera has never been performed at the Met etc. doesn't make them non-operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I never said or implied that being performed at the Met was a requisite for a work being an opera. I specifically said "I'd say it's fairly clear that if a major work has never been performed at an opera house, it is not an opera." In terms of the Sydney Opera House, unlike other opera houses, it regularly stages musicals. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a new one on me that an opera has by definition to be performed at an opera house. Isn't this just a bit pointy? (How about, e.g. Found and Lost?). Nevertheless, look here at Operabase for performances of the 'Threepenny Opera' since 2014 alone, which include Amarillo Opera, Tacoma Opera, Opera du Toulon, Theater an der Wien, etc. etc.--Smerus (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I said "major work", not "opera". Found and Lost is most definitely not a major work, having only been performed in one venue ever. Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course, but the serious point I was making is that a quick look at Operabase shows that Dreigroschenoper had been performed at a number of opera venues in the past two or three years alone.--Smerus (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Steven Sondheim was once asked whether Sweeney Todd was an opera or a musical. His response was it depends on where its playing and who is performing it. When Sweeney is done on Broadway using musical theater performers and conventions it is a musical. When it is performed in an opera house using opera singers and opera conventions it is an opera. There are certain works that bridge both genres and what makes them fit in one genre may not be what is actually written on the page but how the work is translated in performance. The same may be true for The Threepenny Opera. I personally would choose to use both musical and opera categories for the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrij Dobriansky

I recently expanded this article and would like some feedback based on this Wikiproject. I looked at some other articles about opera singers for format ideas, but not sure if I'm using the style guide you recommend. Thanks! tufkaa (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comments below in the section titled "Contemporaries". Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Contemporaries

What is the standard for including mention of a subjects contemporaries in an article? My understanding is that it is common practice to mention fellow performers of note when mentioning debut or other important specific performances. As in, Jean Kraft made her debut in such and such alongside Beverly Sills. Yes?tufkaa (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC) tufkaa (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a fine line between WP:PUFFERY and legitimately providing context. Your example of a single name seems alright to me, but often, especially with less well-known artists, their biography is bloated with laundry lists of A-listers they have performed with – often this reeks a bit desperate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi tufkaa. Michael is right about the "fine line" and personally I avoid adding who else appeared in/directed/conducted the same performance. It is rarely relevant to the person's biography or the trajectory of their career. What are key are the role and the opera house. I assume you're talking about Andrij Dobriansky, which you mentioned above. There seems to have been a bit of ruckus with two socks attempting to excise large amounts of material. Both have been blocked, the deletions reverted and DGG has now stepped in to copyedit the article for encyclopedic tone and neutrality. He's very experienced in this, and I basically approve of the changes he's made. It's now tighter and more encyclopedic. It could probably use a bit more work, though. I'd remove the laundry list of conductors, for one thing. That's really uninformative and should be avoided. ditto the cliche "under the baton of". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Florence Foster Jenkins

I hesitate to put this issue before this group. (Personally speaking, I never found Florence Foster Jenkins's recordings very funny.) Those people who have an intense interest in FFJ have produced an article which has way too much opinion. With the U.S. release of the Meryl Streep film, perhaps some members would like to exercise their editing talents in reshaping the article to have a more encyclopedic tone. - kosboot (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Va tacito e nascosto

This is an interesting new article on one of the arias in Handel's Giulio Cesare in Egitto. But it needs some attention to the layout and Template:infobox song currently in the article is wrong for this. It's basically designed for pop songs and needs to be changed to Template:Infobox musical composition. I'd do this myself, but I'm off for a month in deepest darkest Tuscany with suitcases to pack and limited internet access once I'm there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Gerda, the revised infobox format gives the premiere date simply as 'performed' - whch is a rather odd usage - can that be changed to 'first performed' or, maybe 'premiered'?--Smerus (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's intentionally open, because sometimes we can't be sure if something was the first performance, sometimes more than one performance is relevant, sometimes it would be called premiere, but not for sacred music. You could ask on the talk of {{infobox musical composition}} for more options. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your attentiveness to this, Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, Smerus. I wasn't entirely familiar with the MOS for arias when I wrote it and I appreciate everyone taking care of fixing it. (This is, by far, my favorite aria of all time and I was suddenly horrified to realize there was no article on it!) LavaBaron23:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Expanding Much Ado About Nothing (opera)

Earlier in the month extracts from this opera were performed in England. And given the recent announcement by Naxos Records that new recording of Stanfords Choral music is coming out in September, I thought it might be worthwhile expanding this article. I have made a preliminary step in converting the sources to the current reference format. But I thought I'd post here as I've not done much editing of opera articles and I would like help from more experienced editors in this matter. Graham1973 (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, I've just tidied it up a little and will add more if I can find it.--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Arias/songs italics

On the occasion of "Va tacito e nascosto" appearing on the main page in DYK, the question of formatting foreign-language arias – and by extension, songs – has been raised. User:The Rambling Man applied the, in my view wrong, italic formatting from DYK to this article and suggested a wider discussion or raising it at WP:Main Page/Errors#Errors in the current Did you know.... At Talk:Va tacito e nascosto, I pointed out that according to MOS:ITALICS, the titles of major works (operas, albums, books) are italicised (details at MOS:TITLE), and minor works (songs, arias, poems) are not. I also mentioned that there's an obvious conflict with MOS:FOREIGN in this case, but that it is long-standing practice to apply MOS:NOITALIC, regardless of the aria's language.

1) Am I correct in my assumptions about the formatting of arias/songs in foreign languages – not italicised but in quotation marks? Do the WP:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines need a section on this subject? Note that the section WP:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines § Arias, duets, choruses etc. uses that convention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:New Chamber Opera

Hello opera experts. Is this draft ready for mainspace? I'm sorry if I asked this before; I can't seem to find an archive search box here.—Anne Delong (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The article seems generally OK to me, except that it gives a number of inappropriate references. For example, the present notes 2,3,6 and 7 refer to sources which do not mention or refer to the article subject and are therefore not acceptable. Also most of the productions and recordings require citations. If you can add all (or at least some) of the missing citations, and delete the citations which are not appropriate, you should be OK. By the way, tidy up the linking: a lot of overlinking, and some e.g. Tom Johnson lead to disambig pages. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think you posted it previously, so thanks. This reads like it's from the organization's website. Based on seeing articles in much worse shape, I guess it's ready. I note that at least half of the footnotes are spurious: They are references to general topics in New Grove and other sources. Very few actually relate to the activities of the organization. I suppose notability could be established based on the number of recordings but it would be better to get some reviews of the organization itself. - kosboot (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Smerus and kosboot, for pointing out the inappropriate references; I don't have access to those books, so I couldn't read the text. I have removed them. I know little about opera (although, as it happens, the first article I created was Toronto Light Opera Association); I just found this draft abandoned and added some references to demonstrate notability. I have moved the article to mainspace, commented out the list of student productions, removed some duplicate wikilinks, removed some external links that were about other things, and tagged the list of productions with "refimprove". I'll leave further improvement to the opera enthusiasts.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

La vie parisienne

I don't think the move discussion at Talk:La Vie Parisienne was listed WP:WikiProject Opera/Article alerts. Anyway, the result was that Offenbach's La vie parisienne has been moved to La Vie parisienne (operetta). I think that's not in accordance with WP:OPERATITLE's preference for sentence case for foreign-language titles, and where this work is specifically mentioned as an example. I mentioned this at Talk:La Vie parisienne (operetta) and would like some input which disambiguator should be used, "(Offenbach)", "(operetta)" or "(opera)". I'd prefer the first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think La vie parisienne (operetta) is the one to go for, for two reasons: 1) The article is already there (except for the capital V): 2) someone who's searching for it is likely to know that it is an operetta (or anyway a stage work) but may not know the name of Offenbach. It would be different of course if more than one composer had written a work called 'La vie parisienne', in which case the composer's name wouldt make an appropriate disambiguator.--Smerus (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I will attempt to do that soon, after inspecting the consequences for incoming links and templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Searching for a proof-reader for The Children of Rosenthal

Hello, I've translated an article about the opera, and I would appreciate if someone could proof-read it. I think, this artile at least could be interesitng to read, as an example of Russian postmodern art, so if anyone could fix some spelling/syntax problems during the reading, that would be great :-) I cannot find any sources in English, unfortunately. The Russian article was reviewed by several people for a "Good article" nomination, but there I cannot get the topic expained to match their criteria, so currently "Readable articles" project reviewes it to get a nomination. I.e. though an English speaker cannot read the sources, no worries, you can match them to Russian ones which were/are being checked by Russian reviewers. Thanks! --EUvin (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Best composer portrait on Wikipedia?

(Just a drive-by comment) ... I was a bit surprised by the composer portrait on the Oscar Ferdinand Telgmann page. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scarabocchio! Nice to see you, if only fleetingly. Hmmm, yes, a quite surprising bit of illustration. This is what it looked like. Killjoy that I am, I have removed it. The article itself is still quite a mess but at least Boo Hoo the Bear is gone. Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Shame on you ... these are dark times in the offshore bit of Europe, and we must take our (small) pleasures where we can ... :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Paola Lazzarini

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Lazzarini. Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_125&oldid=1190147380"