Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 132

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 125←Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135

Update project

Thanks to Voce for updating the project page to 2019! Can we at this point also look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines? I specifically think the section about Infoboxes in biographies could do with an update, and the best might be to just drop it. It's all said in the general line "neither required nor prohibited". {{infobox person}} serves many performers and even composers well, Beethoven has one since 2015, and no article is harmed when we show at a glance when and where this person was born and died, and in short why we have an article on her or him, - I believe. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that also, Voce. I think if we really have to link to the dated Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes, Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation would be the better complement, rather than the one presenting a road as its only example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

This was the version of the Guidelines that Gerda was referring to. I have provisionally changed it to this. The main change is from:
Biographical infoboxes for opera singer and opera composer biographies are not currently recommended by this project. The consensus among project participants has been that the use of the available biographical infoboxes, and especially those designed for non-classical musicians is often counterproductive, etc. etc.
to:
If an infobox is used for opera singer and other opera-related biographies, Infobox person is preferable to Infobox musical artist which was designed for non-classical musicians.
In my view there is no longer a clear consensus to say that this project does not recommend them. Several of our members (including me) now use them in biographical articles as a matter of course. However, there is not a consensus to recommend them either, and I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. Needless to say, after having to close at least two acrimonious and highly personalised discussions on this subject in the last couple of years, I have zero desire to go around and around the merits or sins of biographical infoboxes yet again. If you write an article, and if, like the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Australian Dictionary of Biography, you think adding Infobox person is useful and appropriate, add it. If you don't, then don't. I do change Infobox musical artist to Infobox person, if I run across them. Otherwise, pace gioia.
As for linking to further reading, if someone wants to write a more elaborate essay attempting to refute "disinfoboxes", go ahead and write it and I'll link it. I'm not going to write one.
By the way, my updating of the main project page was to the statistics. We now have approximately 11,500 articles under the OP banner with over 5,000 biographies of opera singers. Approximately 28% of all opera-related articles are rated stub class (a figure which remains fairly constant). Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, all fine, no need to "recommend", the neutral wording is great. I only wondered about Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be useful vs. Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation (not by me) which is intentionally concise ;) - Just today, and planned before the update, I expanded a stub, Damiano Michieletto, adding more from de, and there's more on it, and now come references and update, - all planned before the stub statistics, just because he staged Der ferne Klang - see video. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oops! I see that Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation exists (hadn't seen the blue link), although it's mighty short and actually more dated than Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. I've added it the "Further reading" in addition to Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes can be Useful. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
What in it you think needs updating? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know or care really. It's just that you said that Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is "dated" when actually it's been worked on right up to this year. Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: a refutation, on the other hand, hasn't substantially changed since 2014. Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
By "dated" I meant presenting historic viewpoints (not date of updates), such as "an infobox can be useful in certain articles, but many of them are just unnecessary repetitions of facts already presented in the article's lead" (and that's not yet the following "or worse"), - while it's simply what an infobox should do: "repetitions of facts" (just in different format and for different readers), - and who decides "unneccessary"? But enough - back to opera. I just wondered if there was something similarly strange in the refutation, which I'd be happy to amend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I wouldn't say that Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes presents only a "historic" viewpoint. There are quite a few editors who hold that view and still make those arguments. I'm not one of them, but to each their own and all that. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A stub or not a stub?

There are over 3000 opera-related articles classed as "stubs". These should be checked once in a a while to see if the class still applies. Some may well have been considerably expanded since they were last tagged/rated and need their quality rating changed and the stub tag removed.

I'm currently working through French opera stubs, most of which it turns out are very stubby indeed, but I've also found and changed several which were no longer stubs at all. If any of you feel like having a go at this fairly mindless task, here are some lists of articles that transclude a stub tag:

Operas

Opera singers

I'll add some more lists as I go along. If you are working on one of the lists, put your name by it, so people don't duplicate each other's work. Also, you may find a stub on a potentially useful/important topic that you could nominate for one of the monthly collaborations above. Go for it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I destubbed 3 German singers, and will eventually do more about German operas and singers, but first go to the opera ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
adding: the operas are stubs, and not even 50. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Gerda, are you saying that you've gone through all the German opera stubs? If so, I'll put a strike-through on that list. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really. For the singers, I picked which shouldn't be stubs, and they were not. I did the same for the operas, but of some, I never heard the name, and of others I knew they were stubs (some created by me). A more diligent look would be worthwhile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for these handy links, (Voceditenore). I was looking at those for operas and failed to notice any particular order. Is it ok to add years and to reorder them alphabetically (or chronologically)? - kosboot (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi kosboot. I didn't compile those lists by hand. They are generated by going to the relevant stub template page, e.g. Template:France-opera-singer-stub and then clicking on "What links here". Wikipedia seems to have its own wacky way of ordering them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also that many, many more articles not listed above use the generic Template:Opera-singer-stub and Template:Opera-stub. Here are those lists:

Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Voceditenore Maybe these links should be permanently part of the main page (or the talk page)? I tackled one yesterday (No Song, No Supper) - kosboot (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

TFA blurb

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Orpheus in the Underworld/archive1, or A discussion about how Main page readers will be educated about Offenbach's great work, its title and its genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Help needed on Maria Callas - mass deletions and edit-warring

A largely inexperienced editor (less than 800 edits) has appeared and is making mass changes and mass deletions on Maria Callas, and is edit-warring to retain those edits. Please help! They apparently won't take no for an answer, and apparently do not understand consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, + an attitude of "I am the only one who can do it properly". What can we do? Some of the changes are improvements., - some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:3RR is for this purpose. If a couple editors are reverting you, and you're undoing their reverts, you're going to be in trouble fast. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 14:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That's why I reported here -- no one else is reverting the user's unilateral mass deletions. The article clearly needs more watchers -- it's a Level 4 Vital wiki article. Anyway, the user has now apparently stepped away from the article rather than engage in standard wiki procedures. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Marino Faliero

Can anyone identify what this scene is showing? It's supposed to be the crossroads of St. Jean and St. Paul, which I'm guessing are French names for the Basilica di Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Venice - but it honestly doesn't look at all like it, more like St Mark's Basilica - and, of course, I don't think either of those are named in the libretto. Any clues? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 04:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Marino Faliero (opera): not San Marco which is not at a canal. Perhaps ask project Italy? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Might depict the first church, demolished in 1333. The current one was not completed until 1430 or so. Faliero died in 1355. Jmar67 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks basically like the facade of Basilica di Santi Giovanni e Paolo apart from the very tall campanile. I suspect that was bit of artistic license on the set designer's part. I'd go with the description on the print. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Any idea which act? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Act 2 is set in "piazza di San Giovanni e Paolo".--Jeanambr (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Could you add that to the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sincerely, I don't know what I could do: the synopsis ought probably to be properly expanded, but I'm not able to do it myself. Here is a reliable university source for opera settings; here is the whole libretto.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Jeanambr! I did review a libretto I found, but it was a real pain to navigate (images that you had to flip between, not large enough to read in thumbnail) and I couldn't locate it after half an hour of skimming. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 03:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Adam and Jeanambr. I've expanded the synopsis slightly, divided it into acts with their settings, and referenced it to the libretto for the 1840 performance at La Scala on archive.org. I also created an article on its librettist Giovanni Emanuele Bidera. He was quite a wacky fellow. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please help identify some roles from Handel's Julius Caesar/Giulio Cesare?

Deutsche Fotothek has some photos from a 1970 Berlin performance of Handel's Giulio Cesare, from which Gerda Arendt and I are trying to find some we could use for Sylvia Geszty, here: http://www.deutschefotothek.de/gallery/freitext/sylvia+geszty Unfortunately they don't make it clear which one she is. This thread says that the roles are:

However, there may be three women in the photos, which makes things difficult. I'm fairly sure http://www.deutschefotothek.de/documents/obj/71500654/df_pk_0006164_035 would be Sylvia Geszty, since she seems very Cleopatra-ish; and http://www.deutschefotothek.de/documents/obj/71500654/df_pk_0006164_019 I thought would be Annelies Burmeister as the second major role, Cornelia (we also have an image-less article on her, so those will be useful as well), but then there is the white-haired woman at the top of http://www.deutschefotothek.de/documents/obj/71500654/df_pk_0006164_049 which troubles me. Are the first two both Geszty as Cleopatra, and the third Burmeister as Cornelia? In the play Cleopatra does initially disguise herself, so could one of the first two be Cleopatra as "Lidia"? --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The second one doesn't look like Burmeister, but the white-haired woman sure does! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I can tell from knowing the opera that the first image is of Cleopatra and the third one of Cornelia (Pompey's widow, dressed in mourning, with an urn containing her husband's ashes). Not sure about the second, it could be, as you say, Cleopatra in disguise as Lydia.Smeat75 (talk) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know the opera well, but is it also conceivable that the photo is mislabeled as Giulio Cesare? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all! I'm pretty sure the Deutsche Fotothek labeling is correct, even though I wish it were more detailed. Here is a (color!) YouTube video of the opera 8 years later with mostly the same actors (but not Geszty!), and you can see that much is the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBbvrVgkm0 I uploaded three images to Commons and added them to Sylvia Geszty and Annelies Burmeister. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK ... that the Hungarian coloratura soprano Sylvia Geszty (pictured) was a member of the Berlin State Opera in East Germany before joining the Stuttgart State Opera in the West? 28 Jun - finally! Thanks to all who helpd, with the image and the article, which is from April, so I don't dare to add the lovely pic to the top here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More pics here, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Italics or not?

I hang my head in shame. I had meant to post this conversation here for input re italics for "foreign" words a month ago. Anyhow, here 'tis now, copied from my talk page:

Good morning! I'm looking for the best of way of resolving what seems to me an inconsistency in Wikipedia's practice. We are not consistent from article to article in italicising the terms for different genres of opera—opéra bouffe, opéra comique etc. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music doesn't address the point, unless I am looking in the wrong place (by no means a possibility to be discounted), and we have an article on opéra bouffe for instance, that italicises the term and an article on operatic genres that doesn't. There are many more examples of articles that do and don't italicise the term. If, as it seems to me, there isn't a party line on the matter, I think we need to establish one, but I don't know where best to air the subject. The WP opera project has a page—by you—where the point might be addressed, and I'd be glad of your thoughts on the matter. (Apologies if there is guidance already and I've missed it.) – Tim riley talk 08:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I think what applies is the Wikipedia-wide MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English. So... spaghetti vs. opera seria. I must confess, though, that I'm pretty inconsistent with italics in those situations myself, mainly because to the non-specialist, italicized opera seria, opéra bouffe, etc. in articles about operas and composers can make them look like opera titles rather than opera genres. By the way, the bulk of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines was written by other OP editors starting in 2008. I split it from the (at the time) HUGE main project page in 2011 and have subsequently copyedited and clarified a lot of it. I doubt if the OP could or should take a different party line to the MOS guidance, but perhaps a mention of this issue in the OP guidelines and link to MOS:FOREIGNITALIC? I'll run this past other members at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Good! Thank you very much for that, Voceditenore. I'll watch that page and await comments with interest. Tim riley talk 13:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPO listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPO. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I have duly gone and given the nominator a piece of my mind. Grrrr! Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Outcome was "Snow keep", Voceditenore (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Lohengrin page move discussion

See Talk:Lohengrin (opera)#Requested move 13 July 2019. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

See also a similar thing for Faust (opera). Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If Operabase statistics are relevant, in the five years from 2013-2018 Faust had over 700 performances world-wide (number 31), but I cannot find Spohr at all (only Zemire und Azor....)Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

unsourced synopsis?

Hi folks --

A few weeks ago, I started the article Blind Injustice (opera). Since then, someone added a lengthy synopsis that reads rather like the insert from a program. It is unsourced, and I'm curious about whether it is the copyrighted text of the program synopsis. I'm not very familiar with WP's representations of opera, and I wonder how this relates to norms for opera articles. Copyright violation would obviously be a problem. What about the unsourced synopsis? What are the norms for this? Thanks - Kenirwin/(talk) 15:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As you say, copyvio would be a problem, but a synopsis is typically not souced, as in novels and similar works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
To me, it does not read as if it's copied from a synopsis from a program (which would probably have more literary "finesse"). It reads more like the editor was just describing what was going on as it happened. - kosboot (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Gerda Arendt: & @Kosboot:.Kenirwin/(talk) 01:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: & @Kosboot: do you think it's ok to remove the citation-needed tags for those sections? Is there anything we can point to that exempts plot synopses from the need for citations? Thanks Kenirwin/(talk) 21:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
There are no tags in plot, only singers and recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

New article about a place where opera was likely performed

Hello all...I just started an article, Hickford's Long Room, about a concert hall in London (1713 - c. 1779) in which opera was likely performed. Looking up the name "Hickford's" in Newspapers.com or Newspaperarchive.com brings up articles from the era, with the names of singers and instrumentalist performers. At a glance, I would say there is potential to bring out some of these early obscure opera performers and give them a modern presence in the new article. I may add some myself, but my main interest is the instrumentalists. Welcome to anyone.Jacqke (talk)

Review

Could anybody review this draft? Thanks a lot! --Offenbacherjung (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I did a bit of formatting. For roles, I suggest that you say - instead of "Masetto ("Don Giovanni")" - "appeared as Masetto in Mozart's Don Giovanni". (note: composer, title italic instead of quotation marks, no brackets). I bet you can do that yourself, - I am busy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The draft is not mine. It’s the work of a mentee of mine from the German Language Wikipedia. Thank you. --Offenbacherjung (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Article move

I just noticed that the opera L'Orione was just moved to Orione (opera). I'm not certain I agree with this decision as it is not consistent with other opera articles. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree with this move, but then I note that many other Cavalli operas are also titled without the definite article (Ormindo, Artemisia (Cavalli) etc., .... although La Calisto) so we should seek consistency....I would support adding (back) the definite article wherever appropriate to the names given by the composer (and adjusting the lead where necessary to make the original name clear). The justification for this would be that omitting the indefinite article is in effect a translation to English; but the operas are not so well known that the title without the indefinite article is the work's "common name" in English.--Smerus (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I moved it back, - would need discussion with 3 people disagreeing. I don't know about his other operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, but it would be helpful to have a consensus relating to all the Cavalli operas (and others) on this issue. At present L'Orione and La Calisto are the odd ones out for Cavalli - so the overall situation remains unresolved. But cf. L'Orfeo of Monteverdi, Schutz's Die Dafne which is titled Dafne (Opitz-Schütz), La Flora, Rossi's Orfeo (Rossi) etc. etc., so we need to determine a policy here --Smerus (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Call it guideline ;) - inconsistency will happen as long as we use "common name", changing with the whims of what is common. Going to sing on Sunday, guests from the US here, - no time for such matters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
My own feeling is that the definite article should always be included unless there is significant evidence of English language publications consistently leaving out the definite article in relation to that particular opera. Usually scholarly articles in English leave the definite article in, and I see no reason for wikipedia to be any different.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
In favour: Recordings all seem to include the definite article (e.g. L'Ormindo, L'Orione, La Calisto..... Grove gives for Monteverdi L'Orfeo and L'Arianna - but for Cavalli it lists the operas without definite article....Although this (very brief) survey is not conclusive, I would support a policy/guideline to include the definite article.--Smerus (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that consistency is good for more than one way of settling WP disputes, but I'll second L'Orione. Fwiw, of several operas the one with a Grove Opera entry is J. C. Bach's, so Orione (Cavalli) if disambiguation is needed. Sparafucil (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Help request

I'd like some opinions at this discussion please: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Richard Nanes.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Librettist and composer one person

Some, but few, composers write their own opera libretto. I think in such cases, the name should appear in two places in the infobox. A revert such as this tells me that others think the librettist should be assumed to be the composer when not filled. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course composers should be listed as librettist if they wrote it. Wagner's operas do that, as do the works by Berg, Berlioz, Klebe, …, where appropriate. Not having a librettist in the infobox leaves a curious gap. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
You say "of course", but Nikkimaria obviously thinks differently, and said so on her talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is no need to duplicate in this way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no consensus here or at Template talk:Infobox opera to omit the composer as librettist in the infobox. It is also not common practice (see works by the composers mentioned above). I expressed my opinion that this is not straight duplication but a necessary fact about the work at User talk:Nikkimaria#A Clare Benediction. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Surely there are examples where the librettist is unknown. If this field is left blank, is the reader expected to assume that the composer is also the librettist, or should the word "unknown" or "anonymous" be inserted, in order to remove any doubt?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
If I saw such an omission I would assume it was unknown or had not been filled in. I would not automatically assume that I was meant to understand that the composer had also written the libretto. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
As an outside observer, and also as a copy editor who has encountered this question before, I think the librettist parameter should be documented in the template as to be used only if the composer is not also the librettist. I agree with omitting it in the Sirens article, which goes on to say that Riehm was the librettist. Jmar67 (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Jmar67, that doesn't address the issue raised by Jerome and Roscelese about the ambiguity of not stating the librettist. It also goes against the principle of infoboxes as such, and against established practice for the composers mentioned above. The removal of composers as librettists seems a recent and limited phenomenon. If consequently thought through, none of the items in an infobox were needed – which is a different discussion we're not going to have any more. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
No one here is arguing for removal of other parameters, just one in the case that it is redundant - a well-established principle of "infoboxes as such". For example, {{infobox person}} omits a number of parameters (eg |birth_name=, |residence=, and others) in the case that they are the same as others already in use, and the assumption in that case is not that they are simply unknown. There is no reason to believe that an average reader, seeing a prominent display of "Opera by Riehm", would assume that there is some third-party additional creator that we simply haven't bothered to fill in. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Why on earth would an average reader not assume this? The birth_name parameter is completely different because it's reasonable to assume that people who haven't had a name change/use a pseudonym are going by their birth name. Who is out there assuming that composers are generally also librettists? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Because the displayed information is not "Composer: X", it is "Opera by X". The average person told that a work is by X will assume that X is responsible for the whole work, unless told explicitly otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless, of course, that "average person" is familiar with the opera business, where this identity is rare. There are also isolated cases where the composer worked on the libretto with one or more other people. Would it be correct in these circumstances to credit the libretto only to the others?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The word "composer" has more than one meaning, putting things together, but in opera and classical music, it means the person who writes the music, and I'd say even to the average person it means that. I'd think further that even most of these average persons will know that typically the composr is not also the author of the text, and even those who might assume it, will not be hurt by reading the name twice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The word "composer" is never displayed in the infobox to the reader, only to the editor - it does not make any difference what the average person understands by that term, because they don't see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed that before, that the assumption is made that the creator is the composer. I think that should be corrected. Historically there are operas where the librettist is considered more significant than the composer. - kosboot (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I am reminded of theatrical musicals in which the sole composer can be credited with "Words and music by ...". Maybe the template here needs a separate parameter for dual music/libretto attribution. Jmar67 (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The template is intentionally simple. I don't agree that it "needs" such a change. We can simply do what we did before, mention the composer in the librettist parameter also if he wrote it or influenced the writing, just please without being reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The list of authors (composer/librettist) for an opera is a bit similar to those of a film. There, we list director, producer, writer, cinematographer, composer, and actor, even if they are all the same person; see e.g. Modern Times. That way, an infobox can deliver what its name promises. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment. As a reader, I would not assume automatically if the composer is listed but not the librettist, that the composer is also the librettist. I would assume the article is incomplete and missing that information. Composer clearly indicates who wrote the music and not who wrote the words. Librettist clearly indicates who wrote the text and not the music. They are two separate tasks and the words are not interchangeable. I would further note that musical articles, where composers who write words is more common, give clear distinctions between composer and lyricist in the infobox even when they are the same person. See the infobox at Into the Woods for example. We should do the same.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The infobox at Into the Woods labels the participating artists differently from the one under discussion here. This one displays only "Opera by X", not "composer: X" or "music by: X". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Repeating: the oomposer is the one who makes an opera an opera, while a libretto is a book. I can't believe that anybody reading about an opera will not know that. The analogy to "birth-name" as an optional paramater is wrong, because I don't know an opera without libretto, - it's a something that always should be filled. The documentation could perhaps be clarified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I see what you mean. It's design is somewhat confusing. I also see where Gerda Arend is coming from, as many libretti were set to music by multiple composers. Pietro Metastasio for example would often have more than a dozen composers set music to just one libretto, thus creating more than a dozen different operas. However, Gerda that practice is not true of working composers and librettists today. Libretti are now written for single work use (thus making them unique to the opera and just as much a part of the creation as the music), and writing teams sometimes collaborate differently then in the past with the words being added after the music in some cases, or altered to better suit the music, or creating alongside each other, etc. In other words, it can be a more organic creative process between the two artists who are working together to make an opera, and authorship belongs to both of them, as the music can inspire the words, or the words can inspire the music. I personally would suggest using a different structure for the infobox on opera articles with composer and librettist as listed titles. This avoids the most confusion, and is more fair to creative teams that work in a more interlinked way where they are both equally responsible for the final product. An opera is more than it's music. It's story and text are equally as important.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
4meter4, I had little influence on inobox opera. and believe we should wait with changes until Voceditenore returns. Until then, of reverts of the entry - leaving that to the article writer - would be appreciated. Infobox musical composition has the possibility to give two parameter equal weight, composer and librettists, in the rare cases (such as hymn) that it is so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
While I would not have used the parameter in this case, I do agree that the reversion was not justified, considering that the template documentation does not prohibit its use in this situation. This should be resolved at the template level, not here. Jmar67 (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Few people watch the template, and we shouldn't make it more complicated without the main contributors Voceditenore (who is on vacation) and Andy. Andy, can you perhaps already think of a way to modify for situations, when the article is about several operas on one libretto? My primitive approach would be to give them each an infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't see how an infobox or several can be used for articles like Artaserse or Il re pastore (libretto). Presenting the operas in prose or as a list is the only practical way. As for the design of the Template:Infobox opera itself: it went through extensive review before the current form found consensus. The current treatment of |composer=, integrating it into the line "<work> by <composer>" below the title seems quite elegant to me. The majority of editors here, all but 1½, have expressed the need for a consistent infobox entry for the librettist, even if it's the composer. This has been standard practice for all the well known composers who wrote their on librettos. There is no reason not to codify this in Template:Infobox opera/doc. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Could you do that, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The librettist should definitely be listed, even if it was the composer. Leaving it blank in such cases is misleading in the extreme. The wording in the doc was unilaterally changed in April 2017 after 4 years of simply "person/people who wrote the text" to "person/people who wrote the text, if different from composer" with zero discussion and the misleading edit summary consisting of simply "add" by Nikkimaria [1]. It was quite rightly reverted by Michael Bednarek the next day [2]. It should/could be made explicit in the documentation. e.g. by adding "If the composer wrote the libretto, he/she should be listed as librettist." Apropos of all this is that sometimes operas have co-librettists—the composer and a second person. What do you do? Leave out the composer's name because it's "redundant" and let the reader assume that only the second person wrote the libretto? Or add it and make it inconsistent with all other operas where the composer wrote the libretto but is not listed? I also agree with Michael re integrating the composer into the line "<work> by <composer>" below the title. The phrase "Opera by" clearly implies "composed by" in all opera articles, hence Category:Operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Category:Operas by Giuseppe Verdi. etc. etc. despite them having some very distinguished librettists. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
If the infobox is meant to be a one-stop shop for all the basic information, then either the librettist needs to always be mentioned, or we add a "Composer and librettist" option for those circumstances. The presumption if a librettist is not listed is pretty much never that the composer wrote the libretto, it's that we didn't bother to list the librettist in the infobox. I'm sure you can find a wealth of operas where, either now or at some point, no-one bothered to credit the librettist. Then there's cases like Antigonae where it's actually kind of a mess. I don't THINK Orff substantially wrote the libretto to that one, but the infobox is no real use to figuring it out. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 05:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
One other thing to ponder is Einstein on the Beach, which, while not a simple case, does manage to eliminate half the partnership from the infobox. I'm pretty sure Glass did write the libretto, such as it is, sort of, except the bits he didn't... Really, we could use a more robust infobox. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 06:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The Einstein one is easily fixed by listing both Glass and Wilson as the librettists per [3], which I have now done, although some sources put ‘libretto’ in single quotes to indicate its unusual nature. I have also added clarification about the opera's text to the Antigonae article with references. The opera is actually a line-by-line setting of Hölderlin's play, although Orff did not consider the play to be a libretto per se and Hölderlin did not write it for that purpose. Given that, the "based on" parameter is adequate. The robustness of the opera infobox should not be judged by the very few outlier cases like these. Incidentally, the bulk of the Antigonae article was written in 2002 (!), and needless to say, lacks the adequate inline citation that is now expected. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I certainly don't mean to propose that the infobox could handle every edge case, I'm just pointing out that the edge cases help explore the issues. If it's to be presumed that no librettist listed means the composer wrote it, Mozart and Salieri would be presumed to not be a near-exact, only slightly-abridged setting of Pushkin's play, because the assumption would be that the composer made a libretto based on the play. The assumption with Antigonae would be that the text was reworked into new lyrics, instead of being an exact setting. We need to be specific, because otherwise, it's far, far more confusing if things get even slightly complex. Always credit librettist, even if same as composer, means that the edge cases are handled without problem by using based on and other such things. Alternatively, if we want to have a joint parameter, that's fine too. The only wrong decision is to not be explicit that the composer and lyricist are the same. For wikidata purposes, it's probably better to have both composer and lyricist parameters, and maybe a display change if {{{composer|A}}} == {{{lyricist|B}}} - the bit after the |'s serving to kill off the "both null" possibility, which could occasionally happen in a ballad opera. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 23:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The composer parameter is already available to Wikidata, it is simply rendered visually as "Opera by X" beneath the opera's title. As I said before, the phrase "Opera by" is widely interpreted as "Opera composed by" c.f. Category:Operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart etc. There's no need to repeat that composer parameter inside the box. If the composer was also the librettist, his/her name should be repeated in the "librettist" parameter. The consensus here is that leaving out the "Librettist" parameter in these cases is misleading and ambiguous. However, I see your point about these outlying cases where the libretto is verbatim from a source, but there is no intervening librettist as such. Interestingly, sources vary on how they express this. In the case of Mozart and Salieri, some list Pushkin as the librettist. Some list Rimsky-Korsakov as the librettist based on Pushkin, and some simply give Pushkin's play as the source text with no intervening librettist.
For infobox purposes in such cases I suppose one could list the composer as "Librettist" and the source text in "Based on" and clarify in the article text that the composer set the source text verbatim or almost verbatim. Rimsky-Korsakov apparently made some cuts in the Pushkin text, but no additions. Or one could list the author of the text as the librettist, although strictly speaking, they did not write a libretto, they wrote a play. In any case, that would also be clarified in the text. Either one would probably be near enough. Alternatively, we could have a special parameter in these cases labelled "Libretto" which would be filled with something like "Alexander Pushkin's play Mozart and Salieri". On another point... if the librettist is unknown or anonymous that should be listed in the "Librettist" parameter to make that explicit, and again avoid ambiguity. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Aye. I say we tweak the infobox to add options for edge cases, but always say. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 01:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Term wanted

Toward the end of Prelude and Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde ((Wagner), there is a very moving, minute-long chromatic progression over about two octaves that I interpret as a continuous change of key. Is there a term for this compositional technique? Jmar67 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In neither the Prelude or the Liebestod is there a continuous change of key. Can you cite specific range of measures in either the prelude or the Liebestod? - kosboot (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Please listen to this from 15:30 to 16:30. Jmar67 (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I think now that this passage is a good example of the chromaticism that is cited in the case of Tristan in particular. Jmar67 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jmar67:: I thought that might be the passage you're talking about, and there's no specific term for that. Despite its intentionally ambiguous start, the Liebestod is in B major; this is pretty much established by the second "Seht ihr's nicht?" and certainly by "Hör ich nur diese Weise." With that as context, the passage you're talking about begins and concludes on the dominant - it is one continuous build up to the tonic resolution at the words "Welt-Atems." As you observed, this is done with a chromatically rising line in the upper lines as expressed by the violins. Despite the various harmonies, it's all a reinforcement of the dominant chord on F-sharp major (which remains consistent in the bass line), a very chromatic elaboration of a centuries-old idea, the rule of the octave (although the rule presumes the beginning and end are the tonic, whereas in the Liebestod it's on the dominant). Chopin does this kind of thing (chromatically descending lines, rather than ascending) in many of his works, particularly in the mazurkas; think also of the concluding portion of the 3rd movement, the section in F major in the Piano Concerto No. 2 (Chopin). Like I said, there's no specific term for this, other than a description such as "chromatically rising line supported by underlying changing harmonies that reinforce the dominant." - kosboot (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kosboot: Thank you. A friend of mine had an opinion: "The compositional technique is known as a sequence - a repeated pattern starting on different notes. ex. You hear it in J. S. Bach, other Baroque composers, and too many other composers to name. A sequence does not predetermine the harmonic relationship between the different notes/harmonies that begin the repeated pattern. This is each composer's decision for the particular piece and/or historical period OR The composer may be an innovator and use this compositional technique in a new way." As to the key, it simply sounds to me as if the key keeps changing. Jmar67 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
But it's not exactly a sequence which, as you say is a repeated pattern. That pattern is good for a few measures but changes when it gets to "Wie sie schwellen" and certainly at "soll ich lauschen?" after which is not a sequence at all. I think my description above is more accurate. - kosboot (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Suite from Der Rosenkavalier, Op. 59

I am heading to a concert Saturday which is performing the Suite from Der Rosenkavalier, Op. 59. I'd never heard it before, and was surprised to find in googling it that Strauss himself had nothing to do with the arrangement. Given that the work is performed with some regularity by orchestras, and that it's really a creation separate from the opera (although the opera is the source material), should this work have it's own wikipedia page separate from the opera?Here are the Chicago Symphony Orchestra's program notes if you are unfamiliar with the work. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That all depends on whether there are enough accurate reliable-source citations with enough accurate information to create an independent article on it. There is a degree of disagreement over its genesis and whether Strauss liked it, disliked it, or had anything even remotely to do with it. Obviously from a copyright standpoint there is an issue of how it could have been legally created (and performed) without his permission. And so on. Softlavender (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think any of that presents issues which aren't already raised in citable sources. What is an issue is what work that title is referring to. According to this book, there's actually more than one work with that name. That's a problem that should also be addressed in the article. There's also a considerable number of commercial recordings made of the piece: [4]. That alone makes it worthy of it's own article in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is an article by All Music, [5], and here is a gramaphone review for one of the many recordings [6]. There's a lot of references out there, many of which highlight the work's murky origins. 4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor creating an astonishing number of articles on random recordings of operas

This editor is creating an astonishing number (50 over the past 10 weeks) of massive articles on random recordings of operas, all very puff-y, and all cited (when cited) to non-clickable sources (although many could probably be made clickable if they bothered to use the internet). I think they need to be stopped in their tracks and most of the articles need to be AfDed. Help/eyes/solutions needed. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at about ten articles, and I don’t see much to be alarmed about. There are offline references cited, but there’s nothing wrong with offline references. The fact that some may be available online as well is neither here nor there as they are references also available in print. The albums in questioned were reviewed in notable publications like Gramophone, at least the ones I looked at. I don’t think any of these would lose an AFD. I would suggest assuming good faith and making any improvements to the articles (like online urls for sources) that seem beneficial. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I too came across some of these articles. Several have received significant awards, all articles I saw quote reviews, positive and and negative, from notable authors in notable publications. These articles seem to be far better than most articles about non-classical albums. They all need work of some kind, but I don't see any reason to stop the editor in their tracks or take the summarily to AfD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Several points/issues:
1) What exactly is the point of these articles? I appreciate that they are no worse, and indeed a lot better, than most WP articles on pop albums. Vut they are absurdly over the top - mostly details of personnel and compilations of reviews. They are really effectively WP:UNDUE in spirit it seems to me and don't add much (if anything) to the stock of encyclopaedic knowledge. In fact they are a licence to any opera (or classic music) performer to post up similar compilations as articles about their own recordings.....
2) At present it seems none of these articles seem to have links to the main WP opera articles (or vice versa). That in itself seems to ignore a basic principle of WP. But (following on from 1) should we in fact post links from the main opera articles to these articles? - as they are about commercial recordings of works which have many other recordings, are we not, by leaving them standing, conceding them a sort of marketing priority, and making the articles effectively commercial puffs?
3) Really it seems to me that what would be more 'encyclopaedic' would be to whittle these down to the bare essentials as parts of a series of articles '[Operaname] (discography)'. There is already Così fan tutte discography which lists details of the recording this guy has made an article out of - his article doesn't seem to me to add much to the details in the existing discography - just a blow-by-blow listing of the tracks and extensive chunky quotes from three reviews (probably in fact copyright infringements). As life is too short I haven't examined any of the other articles in any great detail.
Just saying.......Smerus (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


The only advantage I could see of having individual album articles is that it would be easier to cross reference and categorize the albums in different ways, and it would be advantageous for critical commentary purposes on that individual recording. For example, the Solti Marriage of Figaro could just as easily fit in a study of Solti's extensive discography as it does within the discography of history of the opera itself, or it could be looked at from a discography perspective of the London Philharmonic Orchestra or as a part of the discography of the various artists involved. The other advantage is its less work than writing a single article on all recordings of a work, which takes a lot more research and time and dedication. Regardless, the articles exist now, and they easily pass WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


Yes, but as I look at more of them, what they don't pass is WP:COPYVIO. All of the comments frorm reviewers, which take up the vast bulk of the text of the articles (as opposed to listings of tracks) are in effect direct transcription, with occasional changes of tense and to the passive mode , e.g. "The recording, he thought, bore many traces of its origin in a theatrical production, and these were highly advantageous. Above all, the conducting of Colin Davis brought a genuine feeling of developing drama, with taut rhythms,....." That is definitely not kosher, and needs to be addressed.Smerus (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. That's a headache. 4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is a problem. He should use direct quotations, rather more sparingly. I don't object to the articles as such - with 170,000 bios of footballers, and 15,000 fungus taxa, what the hell .... Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with that assessment. I'm familiar with many of the albums, and some of them are quite important. The Solti Marriage of Figaro recording for example won the 1983 Grammy Award for Best Opera Recording. If you do a little digging, I think you will find all of the recordings satisfy at least criteria one of notability guidelines you just mentioned. Many of the recordings have been reviewed in Gramaphone, Opera News, The New York Times, etc. Frederica Von Stade is a major artist, so her work does get significant enough media coverage to pass notability.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. They all fail all of those criteria. Criterion 1 specifically says "Some of these works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article." Significant coverage is specifically not enough for a classical-music album article. One or two awards is also specifically not enough for a classical-music album article. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
A Grammy Award winning album not notable enough? Seriously?4meter4 (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not for a classical-music album. Please read WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk)
That’s a wikiproject suggestion page with no enforcement as policy across the encyclopedia. The guidelines for albums at WP:Notability (music) are less stringent.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It is the notability guideline for classical-music albums. All Wikipedia notability guidelines utilized at AfD are guidelines. These are the guidelines for classical-music albums, distinct from all other album guidelines. The notability guideline for other types of albums is at WP:NALBUM, which has a specific hatnote directing to the notability guideline for classical-music albums. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hallo everyone! Please forgive me for not joining in your discussion earlier - I've only just discovered it. Please forgive me too if the album articles that I've been creating as adjuncts to the Frederica von Stade article have been inappropriate. I began them after noticing that the articles A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert and Frederica von Stade - Mahler Songs had been in existence since 2009, so I imagined that if these two articles had been allowed to stay on Wikipedia for a decade, it would be acceptable to add some more of the same kind. I'm very sorry if, as a Wikipedia novice, I've either written too many articles or written them in a way that I shouldn't have. I've tried to make what I've contributed as accurate, fair and interesting as I could, and if I've failed to reach the standard that Wikipedia requires, I can only apologize.Niggle1892 (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Niggle1892, we call that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS -- just because another similar article has somehow remained on Wikipedia does not mean you should continue to create articles which do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, especially not after having been advised on your talkpage to desist. On Wikipedia, unless a classical-music album rises to the importance of, say, Glen Gould's Goldberg Variations, it does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. See WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. The problem was not the way in which you wrote the articles; the problem is that they should not have been created in the first place. As the guideline states, you are free to quote reviews of the albums, and any award they received, on von Stade's wiki article. But please don't create articles on albums themselves. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not exactly! I agree with others above that some of the recordings pass the very high bar of the policy (mainly on awards), but there was a very big problem with the extended disguised quotation of reviews, creating WP:COPYVIOs. You either have to quote fully ("like this"), or summarize and reword the text much more than you were doing. But thanks for coming here! Does anyone have suggestions for something useful for an energetic & enthusiastic new editor to do? Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The notability bar regarding awards for classical-music albums is at least three major awards "a number of major awards", which none of the albums received, so none of the albums pass WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings on awards or any of the other criteria. Softlavender (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Reviews have been my biggest headache. Direct quotations breach copyright. Brief excerpts are selective and therefore compromise neutrality. Paraphrases and summaries inevitably introduce at least a slight distortion of what the reviewer wrote. No solution seems really satisfactory.Niggle1892 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Concise quotations, and snippets of quotations, do not breach copyright, and as long as you aren't cherry-picking and thus misrepresenting the reviewer's view, they do not mislead. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the trouble is that an opera album in particular is such a multi-faceted thing that it usually elicits a review which is simply too complicated to be capable of being summarized fairly. On the three-awards rule, I think it's the case that the Grammys are the only major classical awards which are searchable online, so a three-award criterion would pretty much eliminate classical records from Wikipedia altogether. Niggle1892 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
You need not summarize the entire review. Simply excerpt the most salient or notable point, in the briefest manner possible. It's a skill, but it's a skill that can be developed or learned. Read the Broadway review snippets quoted in any of the good Wikipedia articles on musicals, for example (like this one [7]), and you'll get the idea. In terms of awards, various awards are mentioned all over the place online; they don't have to have a searchable database. See Category:Classical music awards, for instance. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I don't think this is correct. WP:CMG is not a guideline, at least not in the technical Wikipedia sense. If you scroll to the top, you'll see a banner that says:

This page is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community

That's not to say it's not a useful resource to consult, but it does not have the same force of consensus behind it as WP:NALBUM, or WP:GNG. Colin M (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree. Surely you can see that out of the dozens of recordings of any given classical music work, if Wikipedia has articles of only one or two versions, that's a major problem, and vastly non-neutral and promotional. Since classical-music albums, unlike most popular-music albums, are not original works, there must be a much much higher threshold for any given classical-music recording to be given encyclopedic status. Softlavender (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender, that's a big assumption with several glaring errors. First, there are works that are old that have never been recorded, so while the music is old, it's arrival on a recording is singularly new. Second, classical music is still growing with new compositions and recordings of new music being done every year. Third, other genres of music rehash songs all the time. Just because someone else recorded it doesn't mean it isn't notable. This Elvis Presley album for example, How Great Thou Art, does not have any original music on it. Good music gets recorded again and again no matter what genre.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a final word of thanks to everyone who has tried to help me to be a better contributor. I won't write any more articles about albums - to be honest, after today I'm not sure that I want to write any more articles about anything - but if the ones that I've already perpetrated are spared the axe, I'll maybe go back to them and try to revise their "Critical reception" pages to condense them into a selection of quotes. I won't add links to gramophone.co.uk, because that site is unfortunately for subscribers only. Finally, I hope that Wikipedia will make its notability criteria for classical recordings less stringent. To me it seems that première recordings of operas by Haydn, Rossini, Thomas, Massenet or Heggie are worth a Wikipedia page whether they win a Grammy or not.Niggle1892 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I hope you won't be discouraged - this episode seems to have started a discussion on the guideline/essay. There's no reason not to use subscription-only sites at all, though open access one are obviously preferable, other things being equal. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Niggle1892, I too would like to add my sincere hope that you will not be discouraged by this episode and I thank you for your work. All of us here at the Opera Project were new editors once and I would bet the farm that there is not one of us who would not be acutely embarrassed by some of our early efforts. Want to see my first article? It was back in 2006—badly formatted, reeking of puffery, and devoid of inline citations with the only "sources" listed as external links, all of which were closely connected to the subject. I also agree with 4meter4's views on the current inappropriateness of the Classical Music Project's guidelines for album notability which have been cited in some of the comments here and I have joined the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. And per Johnbod, I want to reiterate that there's no reason not to use subscription-only sites or material from hard-copy books and journals which are not online at all, provided full bibliographic details are provided. I do it all the time, although my articles are now inline-cited to within an inch of their lives. Once again, thank you for your work and best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for being so very positive, kind and sympathetic. It'll be fascinating to see if the community does decide to treat classical records as liberally as it does other genres.Niggle1892 (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Niggle1892, I want to also encourage you to continue editing wikipedia, and not be discouraged when you unwittingly make some sort of contributing error. I made so many in my first year of editing, and it was the editors in this wiki project that really helped me be a better contributor. I suggest you join this wiki project and ask for advice here. It's a good group who is happy to offer valuable assistance. Further, I see nothing wrong with the subject matter you have chosen to write on. It's a valuable addition to the encyclopedia and clearly fits in with policy. Unfortunately, WP:WikiProject Classical Music adopted an essay (which is not policy) which tried to subvert policy written at WP:ALBUM; which caught your articles in the middle of something that wasn't your fault. This essay contradicts policy which to my mind doesn't follow policy at WP:POLCON, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and WP:CREEP. Sometimes issues like this come up, and when they do it's good to be able to know policy well enough to challenge what editors are doing or attempting to do which may not adhere to policy. I recommend taking some time to familiarize yourself with policy because it can have an impact on your work; usually for the good. I also encourage you, and any other editors reading this discussion, to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#NPOV Problems with recording guideline; particularly after you've read through wikipedia policy pages. Hope to see more articles from you.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I join with others in applauding Niggle1892's interest, desire to communicate and (not least) industry. Like some of the other editors above, my initial career editing WP was stormy (to say the least). I have supported the proposal to delete the Classical Music guideline on recordings. But I do feel that WP:NALBUM should apply as regards notability, and that standard journal reviews do not count, in this context, as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable". Moreover it is just not on to paraphrase long sections of reviews as article content. This risks contravening both WP:COPYVIO and, particularly , WP:UNDUE. If a third party's opinion has no special implications for the article's subject or on posterity's opinion of the subject, or if it does not show something notable or original in contemporary opinion, it is imo just not worth relaying. Similarly it seems to me that giving details of all the tracks on a recording, or commenting on the recording's artwork, is also not 'encyclopaedically' relevant. But to be constructive, I think (for what it is worth) that Niggle1892's ambitions and WP's ethos could be better combined by creating an article Frederica von Stade discography in which contents, other artists, awards (if any) could be mentioned, and leaving out (unless in some way exceptional or notable) critics' waffle, and lists of tracks where the recording is of a single work. They are paid to fill a page: WP editors work I think to fulfil different norms. Strangely there don't seem to be on WP (yet) discography articles of classical music performers, but there are plenty of pop musician discographies which could suggest an appropriate outline format. Er -- that's it. Smerus (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Smerus, check out Category:Opera singer discographies (6 of them, 7 if you count Andrea Bocelli), plus 15 for classical pianists, 12 for classical conductors and several more for classical musicians and singers in the generic Category:Classical music discographies. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Another point. See WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Article body. It's only a guidance essay (like the Classical Music Project recording notability stuff), but artwork/packaging, track lists, etc. are considered encyclopedic by that project and are used in many album articles, including FAs, e.g. Highway 61 Revisited, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Achtung Baby, In Utero, etc. etc. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space

Proposal to delete all portals, including Portal:Opera, with no notification to Wikiprojects using portals. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Proposal to permanently remove hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

Opinions, whatever they may be, are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert

I would appreciate some comments at this discussion, whatever your opinion may be.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


Classical recordings and WP:ALBUM guidelines

Windsor Light Music Theatre

Started out doing operetta in 1949. There's a discussion at Talk:Windsor Light Music Theatre#Notability, if anyone is interested. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 reverted aria articles O soave fanciulla and Che gelida manina to "blank page" (redirect to the Opera itself)

Hi all, I created 2 aria articles O soave fanciulla and Che gelida manina, originally redirected pages to "La Boheme". However, User:Onel5969 reverted with remarks WP:NOTLYRICS. If aria articles are not permitted, then do we need to remove all aria articles listed in en:Category:Opera excerpts? - Jay (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

These two rather skirt WP:NOTLYRICS, mainly consisting of the lyrics, with the rest a little summary. Both could and should be greatly expanded, & I hope you won't go creating large numbers of stubby articles like this. Nessun dorma shows the way to go. But they just about scrape through. I see User:Onel5969, whose talk is for some reason on my watchlist has his own problems.Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You are not being consistent, have you checked all articles under en:Category:Opera excerpts? . There are many other "stubby" articles, did you redirect all of them too? The idea to start the article is for them to be expanded soon. Nessun dorma when it started was stubby too. - Jay (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done anything to any of them. But many might be vulnerable. You asked for comments, & you've got them. The idea that stubs all get expanded died about 2009. Nessun dorma started in 2004, & was already large by then, indeed had had large removals of "in popular culture". Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
What I see is not a revert (to redirect that would be), but removing the lyrics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Johnbod, sorry... i mistaken you as User:Onel5969 - Jay (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yea Gerda, now he removed the libretto (earlier, he redirect them). I dont not want to do edit warring with him but he is not being consistent. Why only these 2 arias? I asked him to discuss but he did not. - Jay (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
And now these 2 articles look "STUBBY" and strange without the Italian libretto and the translation. I wonder if he will remove Libretto from other aria articles - Jay (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability of productions

I was surprised when a link on the mainpage took me to Der Ring in Minden - are all attempts to assemble a performance of the complete Ring cycle notable? If so, a quick talk-through of how performances can be notable would be appreciated 86.152.200.16 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

My gut tells me that a complete Ring is such a huge undertaking, that notability is a given. That only goes for real cycles though, not just all of the works in one house over several years. And Minden showed the complete Ring this year. --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Der Ring in Minden

Did you know that it was my opera experience of the year? ... that in Der Ring in Minden, the orchestra played at the back of the stage, and the singers all turned towards it to listen to the music at the end? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

60 old opera Navigation Templates for deletion in tFD

Refer Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_7#Template:Adams_operas for discussion to delete 60 old opera Navigation templates. Old opera navigation templates are now redundant because we have the new one that were placed at the bottom of articles. I received at least 2-3 nominations every year because many of old templates were created by me, the last was Template:Purcell operas and Template:Mascagni operas. Share your thoughts at the tfd whether we should keep them both or delete the old one - Jay (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Without sharing thought, they get deleted when not used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: That is no problem for technical editors because they have scripts that allow them to remove templates from hundreds of articles without thought. This page is a good place to discuss the issue, one template at a time. For example, what do people active in this project think about the navigation templates at Agrippina (opera)? Technical editors hate redundancy and they would be horrified by the fact that the article currently has {{Handel}} at the top and {{George Frideric Handel}} at the bottom. If editors here do not have an opinion, the top templates will be removed and then deleted. Should the top and bottom templates be kept? (The bottom is the standard place for navigation templates so keeping the top but not the bottom would be unlikely to work.) If both should be kept, should the top template be modified to reduce or remove the redundant links? Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What harm does it do to have links at the top and the bottom also? The Handel template provides a unifying image for all the composer's articles and allows easy exploration. Same with Meyerbeer and Offenbach. I don't care what happens to a lot of articles but those I have written and / or maintained for years and I fiercely object to the way they were removed without discussion. I agree with Gerda, remove them only if they are not being used. Smeat75 (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This needs careful work. As I mentioned, the fact that {{Handel}} is currently used is not a problem for the TfD. If that TfD results in "delete", all the templates will be removed a few minutes later. What I'm saying is that an objection based on "it is in use" is void. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
We here know that, and respect it. You will have to speak at the deletion discussion if you don't want it, not here. Perhaps you can onvince them that Handel and French opera deserve a treatment different from the rest of opera. It's nothing someone from outside would easily understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Please engage with the issue. I voted at the TfD five hours before your last comment (I assume "You will..." refers to me?). What about the points I mentioned above, namely the duplication of links? It needs serious consideration. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I got your ping first thing in the morning, and replied before even going to my watchlist, or that discussion (which I still haven't seen, just on my watchlist right now). I will not go. By "you" (above), I meant you and Smeat, and everybody else who wants to keep those templates. Now to you all reading this: you may remember that I lost my good name over that issue which was called a battleground in 2013. I was surprised by the action of removing templates from articles but assume that it was done in good faith to avoid redundancy. I will stay away as far as I can, but at least explained to Frietjes (who removed from articles) that a strong attachement to some of these templates is there. In the deletion discussion, they should perhaps group by "still used" (which may have a reason) and "used nowhere". - The topic was not good for my health, so please understand that I will not comment more than this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

COI article for composer Sarah Hutchings

The article about composer Sarah Hutchings has possibly been written by editors with a slight conflict of interest. One username is similar to the author of quoted sources, another username might have been Sarah Hutchings herself. I put a COI notice in and started cleaning up. Please, have a look at the article and see if I got it to a state where the notice can be removed. Thanks! --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi OrestesLebt. Thanks for that. I've taken a further (rather swingeing) red pencil to it and removed the tag. I've outlined my edits and why plus other concerns at Talk:Sarah Hutchings#Neutral point of view, conflict of interest, and notability. I would say that the COI is more than "slight". One editor is self-admittedly the subject, and the creator and main editor's previous username was Americanvocalarts, i.e. American Vocal Arts. Hutchings is the "composer in residence" at that start-up and the company is registered to her husband [8]. The new username is the same as the person listed as the press contact for the company in their press releases. Also, I suspect someone was hired to write that article, if not to upload it. Observe the editor's very first Wikipedia edit: [9] – replete with citation overkill via perfectly formatted references. Not something brand new editors produce but quite characteristic of what paid editors produce. I've got it on watch now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Voceditenore, for your work and for your valuable input on the talk page! I was aware of American Vocal Arts, but not of the business being registered to Mitchell Hutchings. After getting a search result for all of the names together, I stopped looking deeper. It seemed fair to give them a chance to come clean and present this information, so I asked them to disclose their COI, which they still haven't done. The reasons given for notability in Talk:Sarah Hutchings#Discussion of notability of Hutchings could be the very base for contesting it, though. Oh well. I'm quite convinced the article is still going to be beneficial for Sarah Hutchings the way it is now! --OrestesLebt (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
As a follow-up, OrestesLebt, I've listed the usernames of the two editors involved on the talk page in a {{Connected contributor}} template. If there are any further shenanigans from these two, especially the article's creator, I'm taking them to the COI Noticeboard. As for the notability issue, the article probably should be taken to AfD. I may do that eventually if no one else does. As an addenda... In my experience, non-notable artists, composers, etc. with a COI article almost invariably link to it prominently on their official website, and sure enough, there it is (archived). Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore, I learned a lot from looking at your edits! Even if the article is removed, I think we did Sarah Hutchings a favor. (Of course, she might not see it like that yet.) But while biographical articles with cherry picked, inflated or misleading claims could damage the reputation of Wikipedia, I’m convinced they will harm the subject of the article! For example, there was a case in Germany earlier this year, when a young unknown singer got hired to sing a title role at an important house. The singer might very well have gotten the attention of the Intendant on the internet: there are Youtube videos with raving comments (possibly made with sock-puppet accounts), and there is a page about the singer on de.wikipedia, likely created with some sort of COI. Unfortunately, the singer happens to be several Fachs lighter than the internet made it seem. On stage, the singer could not live up to the fabricated online reputation. Critics and audience reacted badly. A minor scandal ensued, when the Intendant tried to defend his hiring decision by attacking the critics. The wikipedia article got deflated with some much needed corrections, but the damage is done: The singer has since not appeared in any opera production! --OrestesLebt (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
You've piqued my curiosity, OrestesLebt! Any chance you could provide a link to the singer's German Wikipedia article? On another note, I've revised the Sarah Hutchings article once again. You know that fulsome review in the online blog/magazine called The Musical Times which compared her work to Puccini, Britten, and Bernstein? Well, it turns out that said blog/magazine is owned by her husband and wasn't even online until 2019 [10]. Good Grief! Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This gets ever more bizarre as The Musical Times is of course a bona fide journal founded 1844. How can there be an online blog with the same name without infringing copyright? So this looks like a very deliberate and cynical attempt at deceit. --Smerus (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The Hutchings story is getting more and more interesting. I could not find out who the "Roger Schmidt" connected to American Vocal Arts is. (I somehow doubt that it is the Roger Schmidt from SITKA Fine Arts Camp (archived), for example.) I find it extremely disturbing to see that an article (archive) attributed to "Roger Schmidt" has disappeared from themusicaltimes.com. Also disturbing, themusicaltimes.com was registered in May 2019, from which I have to conclude the "review" (archived) of Twenty Minutes or Less dated December 3, 2015 must have been backdated. The fact that both Mitchell Hutchings and Sarah Hutchings hold doctorate degrees and are involved in this kind of shady undertaking makes my stomach turn. I want to believe the claims and quotes in their biographies are based on facts, and that they are just remarkably bad at "marketing" themselves. (Voceditenore, the singer I mentioned above is still active doing concert work. I don't know for sure if the Wikipedia article has been made with the singers consent or even knowledge. I wrote more on your talk page without exposing the singer to much, I hope.) --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

OrestesLebt and Smerus, the story becomes even murkier if you look at the page history. I'm pretty disgusted, frankly. A third newly registered editor (sock?) showed up on 3 December and removed the COI tag [11]. An editor reverted him and left a message on his talk page [12]. He immediately blanked his talk page and then returned to the article. This time he removed Roger Schmidt's name as the author of the "Musical Times" review from the reference, leaving the author's name blank [13]. One archived version of the site from October 7 shows "Stan Hoffman" as the author [14]. However, the current page on the site has obviously been changed again to remove the author's name completely [15]. Hoffmann's name as the author appeared in the 7 October version of Sarah Hutchings. It was added by the user called "RogerSchmidt". But interestingly, on 31 October the user called "SarahHutchings" had changed the author's name from "Stan Hoffmann" to "Roger Schmidt" [16]. Meanwhile, I checked out the previous claim in the article that "Her works have been performed by notable organizations including ... The Glimmerglass Festival". That is so misleading as to qualify as an outright lie. None of her works were performed at Glimmerglass. Instead, she was an assistant director on a production of Tobias Picker's An American Tragedy as part of Glimmerglass's apprentice program. As for the fake "Musical Times", that would be a trademark violation not a copyright violation, but only if the name of the real Musical Times had been trademarked. Apparently it hadn't, because American Vocal Arts (owned by Hutchings's husband, Mitchell Hutchings) tried to trademark it in May 2019 and failed [17]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
And for your delectation... observe this user's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Voceditenore, I guess that's where user RogerSchmidt's editing experience came from. I assume "Roger Schmidt" and "Stan Hoffman" are Mitchell Hutchings' aliases when he needs to write articles about himself and his wife. He probably was also editing Wikipedia as user SarahHutchings since he needed to claim to have the copyright for the Stabat Mater Seorsa video. That would explain why user SarahHutchings changed the author of a source from "Stan Hoffmann" to "Roger Schmidt", he might have plain forgotten the alias he had used on themusicaltimes.com! (I wonder if Sarah Hutchings actually has the rights to publish this video. It is her composition, and she might have recorded it, but don't the performers have to release it too? I don't have access to the OTRS Ticket.) Mitchell Hutchings is a good singer, it's sad he's so disrespectful to Wikipedia. Far more concerning, he is taking money from young, hopeful singers applying for his "American Vocal Arts International Collegiate Singing Championship™" [sic!] competition. (Despite the TM signs next to them, I could not find records of trademarks for the American Vocal Arts logo (archived), the International Collegiate Singing Championship (archived) nor for the MH Voice Studio logo (archived)in the trademark database.) Oh, another website Mitchell Hutchings used to shamlessly self promote his business is celebrityvoiceteacher.com. (He is even using the same blogger template as on themusicaltimes.com) So, the COI is well established, I think. But the question is, what do we do with all this information now? --OrestesLebt (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, having written a COI article isn't grounds for blocking or for deleting the article (unforunately). However, if they try to meddle with the article again and/or continue socking, then we'd have a pretty good case to get them blocked. The article, however, would have to be deleted via AfD on grounds of lack of notability. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore. I hope the article can stay. It is currently the only trustworthy information about Sarah Hutchings, and maybe the experience can make the COI editors rethink their self promotion elsewhere on the internet. If the article is deleted, they can just keep lying, and people keep trusting them. I hope they do the right thing, and make the websites they control more factual now! --OrestesLebt (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems like someone with editing privileges on the Hutchings websites has been reading our discussion! The link to Wikipedia on Sarah Hutchings website is gone, as is the link to themusicaltimes.com, which is now wiped clean. The website celebrityvoiceteacher.com is gone, americanvocalarts.com now only shows the 2019 winners and the 2020 championship, and they finally removed the Paypal button. (I found an amusing archived page from americanvocalarts.com- look at the link in "5) Florida Atlantic University") I insereted links to archived versions of some websites that got changed after they have been discussed above. --OrestesLebt (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow! Quite a "clean up" job they've been doing, but thank goodness for the Wayback Machine. I imagine we won't be hearing from this crew again. Nevertheless, I've also got this page on watch. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Brian Boulton 1937 - 2019

We heard with great sadness that Brian Boulton died on 9 December. He wrote 106 FAs, several of them about operas and their composers, namely Claudio Monteverdi. He also left food for thought for us in a 2013 contribution in The Signpost, and always promoted treating each other as colleagues. May his great inspirition last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a small correction, Gerda, Brian died on 9 December. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing, I corrected, striking "November" seemed too ugly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Requiescat in pace, Brian. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD: Ana James

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana James. Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: Closed as "Keep". Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The multiple premieres of Mansfield Park (opera)

The article Mansfield Park (opera) has recently seen multiple attempts to insert the cast of the Canadian premiere. I have been reverting those edits, since the performance is scheduled for March 15, 2020[18] and the edits listed a double cast.[19][20][21][22] Who knows who will actually sing this premiere! But aside from this, this opera from 2011 has 5 premieres listed, four of them with cast, and one is mentioned as the southern California premiere in the History section. (I wonder if there wil be a northern California Premiere...) What is the consensus for new operas, do we list every local premiere? --OrestesLebt (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Only premiere performances should be listed in the "Roles" section; see WP:WPOSG. Others, if notable, may be mentioned in "Performance history". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael Bednarek! Does that mean no premieres asside from the very first performance? There are currently premieres on different continents and of the orchestral version wich came 6 years after the initial premiere with piano. (I think the orchestral version could have a premiere cast, for example. Unfortunately, I can't find the source for the complete cast! Was thinking of US premiere, orchestral premiere cast is sourced.) --OrestesLebt (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I think there are quite a few 'odd' premiere casts around in the opera articles – for instance, why is the 1924 Met Jenůfa notable, for instance? Some in other cases however I think are good to include.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I think there have been discussions about the presentation of multiple premieres, and the consensus was that it should be done only if the opera was reworked considerably or if a subsequent production was significant in some other way. The latter is obviously a subjective assessment, and I disagree with the presentation at Jenůfa. In the case of Mansfield Park, I suggest that only the 2011 premiere and the orchestral version in 2017 should be listed in the box; mentioning the others in the article is sufficient. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again, Michael Bednarek, for your suggestion and for reminding me that style guides exist. Going to rework accordingly! @Cg2p0B0u8m, I think less notable content ends up in articles when the writer comes across nerdy trivia. I feel not including everything is hard! --OrestesLebt (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Die Opernprobe

Die Opernprobe - comic opera but the composer survived the premiere only by a day. All lists of singers - premiere, 1951 recording, 1974 recording - don't assign singers to roles. Should we do OR per voice part, or are there sources with more detail that I didn't find yet? - Happy 2020! - ... all about Beethoven - just booked concerts for the Rheingau Musik Festival, not a place for opera but they offer a puppet show of Fidelio ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Hi Gerda. You'll find the premiere cast list with their roles at http://www.albertlortzing.nl/oper.html. That page also has a scan of the theatre's poster for the premiere from which the cast was taken. There's loads more information on this opera and its background (also with the premiere cast and their roles, plus those for the Berlin premiere) at:
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Voce, very helpful, - I'm on vacation, listening to the surf, - anybody welcome or wait for a week ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Corago (repertorio e archivio di libretti del melodramma italiano dal 1600 al 1900)

Corago http://corago.unibo.it is a potentially interesting Italian-language resource from the University of Bologna:

Corago si propone come strumento di supporto alla ricerca sulla storia materiale dello spettacolo operistico e allo studio della tradizione del testo letterario del melodramma italiano dal 1600 ai primi anni del 1900. Il sistema informativo Corago è articolato in tre contenitori: il Repertorio del teatro d'opera, la Cronologia degli spettacoli e la Bibliografia e archivio digitale dei libretti d'opera riprodotti integralmente.

Sample for "Simon Boccanegra I": http://corago.unibo.it/opera/Z000029388 Don't miss the rather-subtle 'Relazioni con altre opere' at the bottom of that page, which links to source material and the 1881 revision. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Our colleagues at DE Wikipedia have a template for it, de:Vorlage:Corago, and according to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Corago, it's widely used there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, around 700 calls! I looked at Pergolesi's Prigioniero superbo and it has an impressive number of external resources. There's some good work going on over there. Scarabocchio (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest edits in Music Academy of the West

The page about Music Academy of the West has recently been edited by new users MusicAcademyW and ArmenianHoosier. The first one is clearly implying a connection with the academy in the name. A web search for the second one shows a possible connection to the academy. Both users have made similar edits, including pasting text taken verbatim from the academy website. I incorporated their good faith edits, and left COI messages on their talk pages. Please, help me keep an eye on the Music Academy page! Thanks! --OrestesLebt (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User ArmenianHoosier came back to edit the article. I took it to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Now the academy's notability is in question. Since I don't want to appear as wanting to "own" the article, I would be grateful for all help to get it back to notable! I feel really bad for pointing out the conflict of interest. After all, it is a non-profit organisation and it promotes the art I love. --OrestesLebt (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday external links to scores on the MuseScore project were added to Richard Wagner (multiple times) and multiple other composer articles (a couple now reverted). Discussion of their appropriateness at Talk:Richard Wagner#External link to MuseScore. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrea Zsadon at AfD

Hungarian operetta singer born 1946. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Zsadon. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Kept (nomination withrawn). Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

RIP Franz Mazura

Franz Mazura, who performed on stage at the Staatsoper Berlin the night before his 95th birthday, seemed like he'd sing forever, but died yesterday. Voceditenore left plenty of sources in 2010 (!) which are not yet used. I suggest we change that, better late than never. There's conflict about his Grammy awards, Grammy says 1 win, 1 nomination, the obituary says 2, the article says three. - Lets keep edits short, to avoid edit conflicts, please. Sad job ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_132&oldid=970392080"