Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40
Archives Table of Contents

Rosalind Plowright - Mezzo Soprano

The above has turned up on the new article bot's list. It was contributed by User:Rplowright and has already acquired an automated query (on the talk page) about the image. The content is pretty much verbatim from the Biography page of her website. If she wrote this herself, it violates WP:AUTO. What to do?

  • Ask on the talk page, or the contributor's talk page, or via the contact page on her website whether (s)he is RP and holds the copyright? If she says yes to both, then what?
  • Put it down for Speedy deletion and put up a copyvio notice on the page?
  • Do nothing except rename, rewrite and wikify the article (it needs all of those!), which I could do quite easily (she's in Grove and elsewhere).

All suggestions gratefully received. --GuillaumeTell 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that she is notable - and the user has adopted her name! - I might communicate on her talk page. If she is who she might well be, then it would be a good idea to explain how WP works and offer to rewrite it based on Grove etc. The photo could be a pain, but that's why I think we need someone to specialize in clearing image copyrights. -- Kleinzach 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
On my first look at the article I don't think there's anything that screams delete to me. The description of "one of Britain's leading opera stars" is the closest to a judgement as opposed to a fact in it but I wouldn't argue with that assessment anyway. It's certainly a lot less of a hagiography than Gwyneth Jones (opera singer) was. What are needed to improve the article are some references and rather fewer lists.
If she is RP or a relative with the same initials, she at least ought to know or be able to find out the picture copyright status and might be able to assign use of it to us. --Peter cohen 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
She is a soprano --Al Pereira(talk) 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
She has been a soprano, but she now sings mezzi roles such as Fricka and Amneris. --Peter cohen 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok but her main carreer was as soprano, right? BTW, I remember indeed her difficulties with high notes. --Al Pereira(talk) 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting delete as such, but if the person who created the article isn't Plowright herself, it's a flagrant copyright violation - check the link to the Plowright website that I posted up at the top and compare. Even if it is Plowright, it needs a fair bit of work to turn it into a decent WP article. --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I've now posted a query on the user talk page about copyright etc. --Peter cohen 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If she doesn't respond - it doesn't seem she has been online for the past few days - I suggest we go ahead and rewrite the article. -- Kleinzach 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Peter cohen has done quite a good job on that already. --GuillaumeTell 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I only passed Kleinzach's edit total about twelve hours ago. In any case, I think there could still be allegations of plagiarism or copyright breach if someone compared the article with the original source. --Peter cohen 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'll do a bit of pruning and reorganising (tomorrow). And I can add her birthdate ("I can tell a woman's age in half a minute - and I do"). -- King Gama, aka GuillaumeTell 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well that is the key piece of evidence to show that we have an encyclopedic article rather than an article nased on a promotional biography from her website. --Peter cohen 11:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I gave this article a once-over, and I leave it to someone else to take the article further. It still repeats a lot of material from her website, but it's mostly in the paragraphs that are lists of name-dropping. Interestingly, she writes about WHO she sang with and WHO conducted her rather than what roles she sang and where. I found a good source and added some info from it – there is more there, but I didn't want to rely too heavily on one source. There are many reviews of her online that could probably support (or refute) some of what she says, but I would cut these lists of names down or out. Also, there is much criticism of her on line, and there should be a balanced discussion of what roles were successful for her, and in which roles she was forced to dodge the most rotten fruit. Also, apparently, she was considered strikingly beautiful, and I am sure that some reviews mention this either as being a help or hindrance (or both) to her career. Finally, there is much said about why she switched from Soprano to Mezzo (I think her interviews attribute it to a pregnancy, but given the number of other sopranos whose top register was unaffected by childbirth, I find that dubious. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You did a good job. It's so much better. Re pregnancy affecting the voice, it's quite possible, especially if the singing technique isn't adjusted during and immediately after. It's not so much childbirth itself, but the hormonal changes that occur. See this article. Best, Voceditenore 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot maintenance

SatyrTN has kindly offered to follow up the bot run by generating 'to do' lists similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Small to-do list, also to review the categories for new articles that have been added to the cats, but don't yet have banners. It seems a good idea to keep track of which articles have been tagged for lacking sources etc. Should we go ahead with this? -- Kleinzach 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Some points:
  • The long list contains a number of operas, e.g. Falstaff (opera), and also opera singers (Poli, Köth) and potentially other articles more of interest to us than to the Classical Music folks (Will Crutchfield, perhaps?). Would it be possible to exclude such articles from the CM lists (while making sure that they appear on our list)?
  • What is meant by "Articles needing verification"? Is this articles without (m)any sources or what?
  • I thought that "Articles requiring cleanup" would be just articles with the Cleanup tag, but I see Summertime (song), which, arguably, comes within our remit, doesn't have this, so, again, it would be nice to know what the criteria are.
  • The short list looks like a short version of the long list (duh!), but what are the criteria for selection for the short list?
--GuillaumeTell 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all!
The example above is, of course, run on WP:CM's articles (meaning articles with the WP:CM banner. It's not really feasible (nor productive) to exclude an article from one project's list because it's on another one. And that might lead to WP:OWN :)
The way the list is compiled is: The bot reviews all articles with your banner. It looks at each one to see if there is a cleanup banner on the article, and if there is, it adds the article to that group of cleanups. So even if an article desperately needs references, it won't show up in that section until someone adds a {{unreferenced}} tag to it.
To tell you the truth, I'm not exactly sure why "Summertime" is in the cleanup section, since it doesn't seem to have a cleanup tag. I'll look in on that.
The short list is just a random sample of the long list. It's meant to go on a project talk page so that someone just surfing for something to do may get interested, while the long list can be overwhelming :) Except for the deletion articles - that's exactly the same on the short and long lists.
Let me know if you have any other questions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I can't see a WP:CM banner on Falstaff (opera), though. But maybe they removed it recently on the basis that it was WP:OWNed by us :) --GuillaumeTell 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think these lists could be very useful. Shall we go ahead with both? Anyone have any reservations etc.? -- Kleinzach 22:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's get on with it! --GuillaumeTell 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So I'll add the task to the bot. Do the pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Small to-do list work for everyone? Also, the bot is working off either a category of articles or a WP1.0 set of articles, so to go forward with this I can either add Category:WikiProject Opera articles to the banner OR have y'all move forward with the 1.0 process. The category would be easier in the short term, though I recommend going with the 1.0 at some point. Let me know if adding the cat is a problem - it won't change the articles, just add the cat to all talk pages with the banner. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can we add Category:WikiProject Opera articles to the banner? I think we will need time to build a consensus to go with the 1.0 process. (Last time we discussed it there was some resistance). Will the bot include new pages bannered by hand since the last bot run? -- Kleinzach 11:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll add the category. Since the bot will run off the cat, it will catch new pages bannered by hand. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Verdi Don Carlo article

In the article, it says that it was a 5-act, later on was cut down to 4-act. The article also stated "Finally, stagings and recordings of the original five-act French version of the opera have become more frequent. It has been telecast at least once by the Metropolitan Opera with James Levine conducting and Placido Domingo as Don Carlo."

I just need a confirmation about it because I have the 1983 DVD by The Met, conducted by James Levine and Domingo played as Don Carlo – but it was a 3-act opera (Italian). I am currently watching it again as writing this for confirmation. The starting and the scenes “story” are a bit different with the synopsis in the article - no doubt, because the one that I'm having is the 3-act opera.

The article also said "Before the opera begins, Don Carlo and Elisabeth have met and fallen in love anticipating their marriage, but unexpectedly the princess has been claimed by the old King instead. (This is the 'Fontainebleau scene' which forms the first act in the French and Italian 5 act versions.)"

The one that I have is the 'Fontainebleau scene' but it is a 3-act opera. 1st act – 3 scenes, 2nd act – 2 scenes and 3rd act- 3 scenes. What did the author mean by "Before the opera begins"? Act 1 begins at the forest, where 2 of them met each other .... and that's how it's begin.

(FYI - The first time Domingo play the role as Don Carlo at The Met was 1960, I am not sure whether it was a 3 or 4 or 5 act)

Could someone help me to verify this? Is it 4 or 3 act today? Or could it be The Met that cut the act to 3 for their 1983 performance? Can they do that? I wanted to write the 3 act synopsis but I need the know whether this 3-act was Verdi’s idea or The Met? Thanks - Jay 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no great expert in this field, but I do know this opera in its French version. From what I can tell, the article is correct in that there are three basic versions: the original French one in 5 acts; the first Italian version in 4 acts; and the "Modena" version, also in Italian but with a translation of the first French act reinstated (presumably making this a 5-act version too). I suspect the Domingo DVD is basically the "Modena" version, maybe arranged into three acts so they could have convenient intervals for the audience. That's my guess anyway. --Folantin 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The Met is (or maybe was) known for playing hard and fast with act divisions. It has tended to regard an Act as any collection of consecutive scenes that are preceded or followed by an interval. Don Carlos (the French title) has five Acts, as follows:
  • Act 1: Fontainbleau, France. Carlos and Elisabeth meet and fall in love, but she accepts the invitation to marry his father.
  • Act 2 scene 1: The monastery of Yuste/Saint-Just in Spain. Carlos and Posa swear friendship.
  • Act 2 scene 2: Outside the monastery gates. Carlos and Elisabeth meet; the King sends away the Countess of Aremberg and engages in dialogue with Posa.
  • Act 3 scene 1: Elisabeth and Eboli exchange masks, Eboli realises Carlos loves Elisabeth, Posa threatens her.
  • Act 3 scene 2: Auto-da fe.
  • Act 4 scene 1: The King soliloquises, is threatened by the Inquisitor, intrigue involving Elisabeth, Eboli, Posa
  • Act 4 scene 2: Carlos's cell. Posa appears and is killed. Insurrection, quelled by the Inquisitor. Eboli helps Carlos escape.
  • Act 5: Back at the monastery. Carlos and Elisabeth meet for the last time, the King and Inquisitor turn up, Carlos is saved by the Mad Monk.
As for the article, my view is that it should give the complete synopsis for the 5-act French version (i.e. what Verdi originally wrote), and, within that, show what changes were made for the four-act Italian version. There is no 3-act version (except, possibly, in the mind of some opera administrators).
--GuillaumeTell 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to write a complete synopsis for the 5-act version? -- Kleinzach 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could do that - I have several sources. It won't be before the middle of next week, though. --GuillaumeTell 10:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I never really liked the story except their nice costumes. The last time I watched this was like couple years back.. and I watched it again last night (fast forward many times.. boring stuff, but basically, below is what performed at the MET)

The Met – Levine, Domingo 1983

  • Act 1
  • Scene 1: The forest of Fontainebleau

Elisabeth & her page lost their way and Carlos offers to accompany her while her page goes to summon the escort. Carlos then shows “the infante” photo and Elisabeth recognizes him. They fall in love. The page came back with escorts and addresses her as a Queen, anyway, she accepted the father (after damn long singing by people in the forest urging her to accept it for the sake of peace between France – Spain)

  • Scene 2: The cloister of the Yuste Monastery

Carlos is sad and heard the voice of his late grandfather. Rodrigo joins him. Long singing.. and vows to live and die together

  • Scene 3: Outside the Yuste Monastery

Eboli sings about a king who wooed a lady in a palace garden, later found that the lady is his wife… Queen enters, Rodrigo hands her a letter from Carlo, In the same time Eboli sings – reveals her love to Carlos. Carlos came in and asks her to obtain permission to leave for Flanders. The queen was.. ok with it (haha) and makes Carlos feel so devastated. The king came (Carlo runs off) and see nobody with his queen (angry) and orders the queen French maid to return to France. The people leave except the king and Rodrigo. The king appoints him as his personal counselor but warns him to beware of the Grand Inquisitor.

Second DVD
  • Act 2
  • Scene 1: The Queen’s garden

Carlos enters, reading the love note, he thought from Elizabeth. Mistaken Eboli as Elizabeth (sings – reveal his secret to Eboli). Rodrigo enters tried to silence her.

  • Scene 2: A square before Valladolid Cathedral

People gather – Monks and Inquisitions victims – public burning. The King appears, later Carlo came with Flanders. The king sent them away. Carlo drew his sword to his father, nobody dare to disarm him but Rodrigo. The King made him as a Duke.

  • Act 3
  • Scene 1: The King’s study room

The King suspects that the Queen doesn’t love him. He asks the Grand Inquisitor whether he will be forgiven if he sentenced his own son to death. The Grand Inquisitor says “yes” (something like that). Elisabeth rushes in, saying that she has lost her jewel casket. The King has it, opens it and asks why Carlo’s photo in there. Eboli came in, expressed her regret stealing the casket. She confesses that she is the King’s mistress.

  • Scene 2: Don Carlo in prison

Rodrigo bids Carlo farewell. Carlo’s incriminating letter was found on him. A fire shot, he fell. Before he died, he said Elisabeth is waiting at the Monastery. The King came to return Carlo sword, but Carlo refused to accept. Eboli went in (can’t remember what she said) and the place was crowded with people, Carlo ran off with Eboli.

  • Scene 3: The cloister of the Yuste Monastery

Elisabeth was praying when Carlo enters. They sing, the king enters and seized his wife and delivers his son to the inquisitor. Carlos defending himself (both the father-son heard the voice of Charles V) and … (THIS PART I DON’T GET IT). Carlo ran into the tomb, followed by the father?

-Story ends- and I went to bed.. puzzled
Ah yes, you are not the only one! Verdi has some trouble with that ending. -- Kleinzach 11:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone write the full 5-act synopsis? It is better than reading or watching the revised version. - Jay 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo sposo deluso

In all the infobox brouhaha, I forgot that this was Mozart month on the Opera Project. Anyhow I just expanded this article from a stub. It was originally only a couple of lines plus a list of the existing pieces from the opera. I left the list as it was, and just put it in its own section, but I suspect the list needs to be formatted differently and I'm not sure quite how it should be done. So maybe someone could nip in and do that? Also, if you think the stub shouldn't have been removed, please feel free to slap it back on. Best, Voceditenore 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO definitely not a stub. Looks excellent, given that the work is such an anomaly anyway. -- Kleinzach 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And thanks for the tip about the capitalization for the title. I was quite unsure what the convention was for the "ossia" type titles. I'll go fix it. Best, Voceditenore 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the frame for roles. Do you have its premiere date? (It is too long to be called a "stub" article) - Jay 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I'm wondering if these sorts of frames are useful for unfinshed operas that have never been premiered as an opera per se. But in case the OP wants these for all operas, even unfinished anomalies like this, I've now added this note above the table to clarify: Note that the opera was unfinished and never premiered as such. The singers names given in the table below are those for whom Mozart wrote the roles and who were to have sung in its premiere. This was the way I had originally presented the roles and projected cast. Best, Voceditenore 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about the format for unfinished operas. Let see what others think about it. I put up the frame to standarzied the article format. - Jay 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. This opera is unique. I don't think we will have another one where the cast is known but the performance never happened. -- Kleinzach 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, don't worry about it, Jay. I've removed the field for premiere date and composer (whoops) conductor and with the addition of the preceding explanatory note, it should be fine. Also, since I hate seeing red links in my articles, I've also done an entry for Bampton Classical Opera. Best, Voceditenore 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archives

There are currently 32 talk page archives, mostly about 30k long. This makes searching through the archives extraordinarily time-consuming. Does anyone object to consolidating them to 5 200k pages? There are very few "What links here" hits to the archive pages, so this wouldn't break links. Fireplace 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can't see any objection myself, but could you adjust the links I made today on the project page accordingly (first four links in "Infoboxes", referring to current archives 15, 30, 31 and 32, I think). Thanks. --Folantin 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always archived them at 30k because I understood that was the WP recommended limit per page. Has this changed? Frankly I don't see that 200k archives would be much easier to use. Maybe what we need is an index? Is that possible? -- Kleinzach 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The 30k limit is primarily to prevent articles from becoming unreadably long. Larger archives would be easier because if you're looking for the discussion of xyz, you can find it by using your browser's find function on just a few pages. Fireplace 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. But what about having a index of headings? -- Kleinzach 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't the archive pages automatically have tables of contents? --Folantin 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but a separate index would be much easier to use and the archives would not have to be reorganized. Incudentally I have checked and the 30k archive does seem to be the norm. -- Kleinzach 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) P.S. The other issue, of course, is access for people using slow connections who wouldn't be able to retrieve long pages. I'm not sure to what extent this is still a problem. -- Kleinzach 01:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle

Hello all. I just recently went to the Kathleen Battle page and was horrified by the state it was in. Most of the information on the page was not cited, and the information was badly organized, rife with gramatical errors, and poorly written. So, I have begun the process of revamping the article. Out of respect for whoever created the article I have tried to leave things as close to the original as possible. (although I was sorely tempted to just delete the thing and start over) Anyways, I have spent a while working on it and I now have a headache. lol There are still too many things to fix and I am worried about possibly plagiarized material from the previous authors. If any of you have a heart to help please do! I love not having to do it on my own. Oh, and I know there are still several obvious errors. But just look at how many corrections I've made already. I'm going to bed now but I will be back to work on the page tommorow. I welcome all others to join the effort! :-) Nrswanson 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been a created a while back, thanks greatly for your efforts. I'll take a look. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The image apparently was extracted from a record cover, from [1] (see the explanation in the image file) so perhaps it should be deleted? -- Kleinzach 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Porgy and Bess

Help, please: An editor just deleted the entire musical analysis section from the article on the grounds that it was generally uncited. I restored the material and added a couple of "cite needed" tags. If anyone has a book on George Gershwin or P&B, would you kindly add the cites? I don't think the whole section should be deleted, although I'm sure it could be improved. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. It would have been a shame to loose that information from this Featured Article. -- Ssilvers 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome.;-) Those two refs were pretty easy to find, although I'm a little concerned about the examples from the score in the sub-section on 'Use of leitmotif'. It really ought to say which edition of the score was used, publisher, etc. I notice that the info hasn't been given in the image file information either. They were uploaded by User:Alexs letterbox. Perhaps he could be contacted? In any case, since it was Featured Article, surely objections about the referencing would have been raised then. So it's probably OK. Best, Voceditenore 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Fair use problems...here we go again. Will sort out if at all possible. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There's another issue with the sub-section on 'Use of leitmotif'. Without a reference to a published work supporting the particular analysis given there, it could potentially be seen as a violation of "No Original Research". After googling, I doubt if it's plagiarism, at least from an online source. But it could be from a book or journal article, in which case it still needs referencing. Best, Voceditenore 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Great, that's excellent. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I recently was making a list of opera companies in an article and I noticed how confusing the tag to the Royal Opera (a.k.a Covent Garden) is. The Opera Company is tagged as Royal Opera, London and the tag for The Royal Opera House actually has the tag for Royal Opera. When listing opera companies a singer has performed with it looks really odd to have the ',London' in the mix of opera companies. I was wondering if we could maybe change the tag for the opera company to simply Royal Opera, as that is its actual name, and then change the link to the opera house to the Royal Opera House (which is its name).Nrswanson 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You can always use piping to simplify a link. For example Royal Opera, London can be piped to Royal Opera. See the code, it's the same link. -- Kleinzach 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it should be called "Royal Opera" and "Royal Ballet" as the sub articles for ROH. - Jay 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Opss but there are other "Royal Opera House" in Valletta and Mumbai. I think thts why the author put "London" behind it. - Jay 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This came up before. I wasn't involved (as far as I remember!) but I think the present arrangement is there to avoid ambiguity. -- Kleinzach 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
But to avoid ambiguity might not "Covent Garden" be better appended to "Royal Opera House" than "London" to "Royal Opera"?--Peter cohen 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
At the moment we have Royal Opera, London for the company and Royal Opera House for the house. Each three words which seems to satisfy the requirement to use the simplest practical title. Are you suggesting that the latter should be 'Royal Opera House, Covent Garden'? I'm not sure I understand the advantge of this. In any case we can use re-directs for all possible permutations-- Kleinzach 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually Royal Opera also takes you to the Royal Opera house. I'm sugesting that we make Royal Opera go to the company instead. When you are listing opera companies on a persons bio ',London' looks confusing. Royal Opera is more clear.Nrswanson 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand what you mean - the re-direct. Yes, OK, the normal way to deal with this is to make a disambiguation page. -- Kleinzach 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now made a disambiguation page for Royal Opera. -- Kleinzach 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! That's perfect! Do you think we should make a disambiguation page for Covent Garden as well?Nrswanson 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
How many articles are there? If it's only two then maybe it's not necessary, but if there are more it might be a good idea. -- Kleinzach 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the tag at the top is preferable to a disambiguation page. --Peter cohen 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Two articles, same singer

I discovered that there are two articles on Solveig Kringelborn: Solveig Kringelborn (just a stub) and Solveig Kringlebotn (more complete).

The name she uses on the Norwegian version of her web site is her real name "Solveig Kringlebotn". On her English version, and in sources about her in English (including my ROH programme for The Flying Dutchman) she is referred to as "Solveig Kringelborn" (easier to pronounce, I guess)

I propose to use Solveig Kringlebotn as the article (adding an "also known as"), and then redirect Solveig Kringelborn to it. Is that OK? Or should I transfer the material from Solveig Kringlebotn to Solveig Kringelborn and re-direct from Kringlebotn? Voceditenore 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that because this is the English-language WP, it would be better to use the best-known form of her name in English-speaking countries. I see, though, that Kringlebotn is now the preferred form. Obviously, it doesn't make a lot of difference so long as there's a redirect, but I for one had no idea that her real name wasn't Kringelborn, and I imagine that others who've heard or heard of her might be equally surprised. But whichever form is used, the article should at least mention that the other form exists (and say why). --GuillaumeTell 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article should explain the spelling difference - then there's no problem. -- Kleinzach 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I nipped 'round this morning and saw that Moreschi had kindly done the re-direct. I took a closer look at the article, and it was actually a bit of a dog's dinner, with lots of misspellings, infelicitous phrasings (I think it had been translated from the Norwegian Wikipedia), wrong info (e.g. her Met debut was in Don Giovanni not Meistersinger), etc. Plus the only two sources, besides her official web site were in Norwegian. So I fixed it up a bit, added some refs, and explained the two versions of her name. Best, Voceditenore 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

James Henry Mapleson

I just ran into this article and added some information to it from the internet, but this impresario had a major impact on opera in both England and America in the 19th century, so I wonder if someone here wants to adopt the article and take it further. There appears to be quite a bit of information available about him. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 15:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Steven Plunkett - one of our best contributors on opera articles - is working on this. Maybe you'd like to talk to him? -- Kleinzach 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario Lanza

Are all the fan sites, for Mario Lanza Yahoo chat sites, etc. Wikipedia standards on this page?

I've removed the worst of them. Mak (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_33&oldid=1190107772"