Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Archives Table of Contents

Development of an opera audience/Rock opera again!

Does anyone have any good ideas as to how best to write this section of the main opera article? Any good sources to look at? The other section-stub, "Contemporary trends", has now been written up fairly decently, half by an anon and half by me forgetting to sign in. I don't know if any of what I or the anon said is controversial or wrong, but all comments are welcome on this as well. Moreschi 12:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

'Contemporary trends' is turning into a very good summary. As for 'opera audience', is this a useful topic? Are there WP articles covering film audiences, play audiences, chamber music audiences etc? I imagine an article on 'opera audience' would be a series of local histories revisiting all the usual clichés about elitism followed by a lengthy explanation of the influence of recordings. Grove obviate this (unlike us) with a series of entries on the history of individual cities that are important in opera history. As we are a general encyclopedia we can't handle this in the same way, but then do we need to? - Kleinzach 12:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell these articles don't exist (I only did a brief search) but I don't see that that's a reason for us not to do a brief section (nothing longer) in the opera entry. I agree that this could run into the kind of trouble that you describe above, but in the hands of skillful, knowledgeable and capable contributors (that's us) I don't think it will.Incidentally, Mr Silvers has used this as a way of getting his rock opera stuff in: that's fine by me just now, but no more, O.K? Moreschi 15:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not enthralled by the dumbing-down of what should be (and actually was) a well-focussed section of our flagship article with a whole lot of stuff about popular music. Regarding 'opera audience' I still think it would be very hard to write a good short section. - Kleinzach 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what everyone else thinks about the rock opera stuff. The main problem with it, I think, (on reflection) is that strictly speaking it's in the wrong place. That section is about contemporary, recent and modernist trends in opera, not in rock opera or musicals. It probably belongs in the rock opera entry, not in the opera article. In fact, the more I gaze at that paragraph, the more incongrous it looks. By this time next week, I'll have the 'opera audience' section written (other people's contributions welcome - I've got to do some research first!). If no one likes it, we can just delete. Cheers, Moreschi 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Rock opera is not a modernist trend! You can't explain it in terms of Wagner and Schoenberg. - Kleinzach 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get too hung up on rock opera. Ssilvers makes a perfectly valid point about musicals being performed by opera companies (and there are other examples than the ones he mentions). Why don't I create a (brief) separate section called something like "Opera and the Musical", where rock opera, jazz opera, hip-hopera, Broadway opera, Jerry Springer the Opera and what have you can get a mention? (And don't forget that, to some people, "opera singer" means Charlotte Church and Russell Watson. We can't completely ignore these trends, however regrettable they may be thought to be.)

On the subject of developing opera audiences, I don't see why there shouldn't be mention of things like opera companies' outreach work, the Flash Mob thing that was on TV last year, Glyndebourne's reworking of Così, schemes like Travelex Mondays, etc. Most of the Friends of Opera North are over 60 (God knows what the average age of the Friends of Covent Garden is), and developing an opera audience is starting to look like a priority!

--GuillaumeTell 17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

O.K then, a separate section should be fine. My only real beef with that particular paragraph was that it was in entirely the wrong place. I'd written three paragraphs about Wagner/Berg/Schoenberg/Britten etc and then we had a strange little addition about rock opera. I agree that there is a certain connection between opera and the musical. However, given the fuss that Mr. Silvers made about the whole thing a while back, perhaps he might want an entire (distinct) article about the links between opera, rock opera and musicals? Would a short section keep him contented? I can easily see that mushrooming into something very large. Just a thought. Moreschi 18:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[Written before Moreschi's reply]: There is no argument about musicals being performed by opera companies (they are), though that wasn't the point of the paragraph, which was to legitimize rock opera. A separate section with a suitable title might be a good idea, but really it doesn't belong there at all. The point of Wikipedia is to link information not to duplicate it.

Re dumbing down, Church, Watson, EMI marketing, and geriatric audiences, these are particular British phenomena not universal tendencies. In many countries opera audiences are young, well-informed and not overly influenced by traditional mass media.. Amazingly they just like the music! - Kleinzach 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Mr. Silvers to comment. The whole thing's his area, not mine. If he wants a separate article, that's fine by me; if a new (but short!!!) section, then I don't really mind either. His contributions seem to show that he isn't editing at the moment, so we might not get a comment for a couple hours/until tomorrow.

Re elderly audiences: I'm a Londoner (Britain, not Texas), and here the main opera audience isn't particularly geriatric - usually middle aged, and upper middle-class. However, I'm youthful myself (I'll not be saying how young), and I simply adore the music as well. Wikipedia, for me, is a wonderful way of expressing that, as well as doing some practical good to the world. In my opinion, the main barrier to the youth of Britain as regards opera (and classical music in general) is the lack of new masterpieces being written that are actually performed more than once. For them, opera is a moribund museum art form, and on bad days I often feel like agreeing. Whether serialist excesses are to blame is another question. How can you reasonably expect people, and youths especially, to take interest in what is lamentably a dead art genre. Since the deaths of Britten and Shostakovich, who has stepped forward as a composer of lasting works of genius? When GuillameTell suggested as an annotation "last opera composed with a foothold in the standard repertory", (concerning Britten's A Midsummer Night's Dream) he was entirely correct, but talking about an opera premiered in 1960! How wretched is that? Moreschi 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think opera is dead with people like Henze, Glass, Adams etc still going strong. Opera must change like all the arts but i think this is recognized by composers. Regarding "a foothold in the standard repertory", I think we have now gone a long way to debunk the idea of a standard repertory anyway. MND (which I like) might well be the last major British opera, but surely not internationally. Personally I would go for Nixon in China as the last important work. I believe it will survive. - Kleinzach 19:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Moreschi's question, I agree with G.Tell's suggestion.

As for the graying of opera audiences, it is a very serious problem in the U.S., and the survival of opera (or at least big budget productions of opera) here depends on cultivating new generations of audience members. The Met reports that the average age of their audience members is 60, and its annual budget shortfall is huge, making the opera house completely dependent on the kindness of old New York money, which also can't go on forever. Best regards, Ssilvers 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK then, flap over. Not a bad day's work, on the whole. By the way, I think that the picture for opera audiences isn't so bad here in London, but the supply of good new operas seems to have dried up. Moreschi 20:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the section has just mushroomed as you predicted. It's now double the size. - Kleinzach 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just slimmed it down to 7 lines of text without losing any clarity, I think. Ssilvers 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, then. Moreschi 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Musicals

Hi, all!
We're just getting WikiProject Musicals off the ground, and we've recently questioned whether or not operettas would be under our umbrella. As of now, we're considering them yours -- if you would like us to handle them, that's cool, too.
I'm sure we'll have other questions as we grow.
If there's any way we can work together, please let us know. I see you've recently had the "cross-over" discussion on your talk page; if we can help at all, by all means let us know.
— Music Maker 08:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the greetings!

In the case of operettas (normally performed by opera singers) we have treated them as part of the opera world and they are categorized as such on WP. They are also included in our extended list of works at The opera corpus. Most operettas are French or German and their editing follows the Opera Project style (including foreign language rules) based on the New Grove Dictionary of Opera.

The opera corpus does include some musicals (such as Show Boat, West Side Story etc.) but these obviously lie within your territory and of course we defer to you on how they are edited.

Best of luck with your project. - Kleinzach 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — Music Maker 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Composer of the month for August?

Who should we have in August? Some candidates: Gluck, Offenbach, Rossini, Richard Strauss and Verdi. Any preferences? (If I am allowed a vote myself it will be for Gluck - not well-served at the moment.)

BTW Fireplace has done a terrific job putting up stubs for all the Donizetti operas. All the basic facts are there and the articles are ready for those who have seen the operas (or have recordings) to fill out the pages. - Kleinzach 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Gluck sounds o.k to me. Moreschi 14:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And to me. I'll be seeing Gluck's Armide later this month. Also this month, I'll write up further some of the Donizettis that I've seen. --GuillaumeTell 21:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Gluck it is then. - Kleinzach 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistranslations/'False friends'

I’d like to note some ‘false friends’ mistranslations I’ve been finding recently:

1. Melodramma as “melodramatic opera”: the Italian word Melodramma means opera, so a ‘‘melodramma tragico’’ just means a tragic opera. Melodrama (with two ‘m’s) has two meanings. The commonly-understood meaning (explained in the Wikipedia article) but also a technique of using the spoken voice to heighten the drama, is used by Beethoven in Fidelio and Weber in Der Freischütz.

2. Tragedia lirica as “lyrical tragedy”: it simply means tragic opera.

3. Opéra comique as “comic opera”: opéra comique is a genre that is often far from comic e.g. Carmen. It should remain in French.

Actually a lot of trouble can be avoided by not translating! If it is left alone it will be correct! Hope this is helpful. Best. - Kleinzach 11:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've been listing genre like this: '''''{title}''''' is a ''[[{genre}]]'', or [[opera]], in {n} acts by [[{composer}]]]. But if there's a better standard, I'll switch it in.Fireplace 21:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job - I know the tables in particular take a lot of time to do. The formula you are using is fine IMO. (The genres will make more sense when we have more articles about them.) - Kleinzach 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally would vote for the genres to be shown exactly as the librettist and/or composer intended (in the language that was employed by them) - which, I think, is what you're suggesting here - and those can then be a much better basis for a Wikipedia corpus of genres than what we have at present. --GuillaumeTell 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting that, sorry if it wasn't clearer. Actually we also need to look at opera terminology, it's not just genres which are involved here. - Kleinzach 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good articles list on project page?

Shall we put this list just underneath the current list of featured articles? Do people think that this is a good idea? Dido and Aeneas would be the first entrant that I know of, although The Fairy-Queen might be joining it soon. I think that it gives us something to aim at that is a little less difficult than the lofty heights of FA. Cheers, Moreschi 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For the past six months we have concentrated on improving our coverage while rewriting/refurbishing particular pages which were inaccurate, misleading or badly edited etc., i.e. filling holes and getting rid of the bad stuff. We haven't been trying to produce excellent articles. It's been implicit that that should come later.

The only really thorough-going article that I know of is Porgy and Bess which was given featured article status. (This dates back to 2003 and I think it was more or less finished before any of us were here.) The two Purcell operas still lack comparable performance and recording histories, and full bibliographies. Buondelmonte's Grand opera article was shaping up to be an important contribution, but I don't think he has had time to work on it recently. (It needs illustrating).

So I rather doubt whether we are ready for a list of 'good articles', though if someone wants to work on developing particular articles up to the Porgy and Bess standard that'll be great. - Kleinzach 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a little misunderstanding is at work here: by "Good articles" I meant articles that are in the good articles category: and have been listed as such. Moreschi 17:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, hadn't heard of this before! Now I understand. However having read the explanation at Wikipedia:Good articles (basically that "good articles" are short "featured articles") my comments above still stand. I don't really feel we are ready for this yet. - Kleinzach 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

However, one vital point is surely that the criteria for good articles are one hell of a lot less demanding than for FAs, and that the inclusion of such a (very brief) list will give us something to work towards that is less strenuous than a full blown FA, given our current state of development.

Oh, and re: The Fairy-Queen; a bibliography and recording + performance histories are great ideas, and I'll work on them, but I'm not quite sure what extra can go into the synopsis. I've included virtually every aria, and there isn't much of a plot (the time gets filled out with bucketloads of repeats) - unless Grove gives the entire plot of the Shakesperare play, but that's surely a bit excessive. Moreschi 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good articles (see also above)

On a separate note, does anyone else have an opinion to proffer about my proposal for a good articles section to be created just above the featured articles section on the main project page? So far we have one "aye" and one "nay" (all reasons detailed above). Moreschi 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include good articles. I have no opinion on the categories, although Moreschi's suggestion makes sense to me. Mak (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable singers?

The project page has a list of well-known contemporary singers lacking articles (Can you help?). Ssilvers has just added these names: Nico Castel, Muriel Costa-Greenspon, Robert Hale, and Frank Porretta. Robert Hale is indeed a notable bass-baritone who has had an international career, but what about the others? Who are they and why are they notable? - Kleinzach 23:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Castel is a well-known compramario tenor, at least in the US, and has sung over 200 roles in his 36 years with the Metropolitan Opera Company and elsewhere throughout the US and continental Europe. Also, he has been the "staff diction coach" for the Metropolitan Opera Company for the past 26 years. He is also on the faculty of The Juilliard School of Music. He has produced 20 volumes of translations of French, German and Italian opera libretti, as well as the "Manual for Spanish Lyric Diction". For more information about Mr. Castel visit his web site at www.castelopera.com (also click on "about Nico").

Costa-Greenspon was a long-time performer with New York City Opera, but she also sang at the Met and elsewhere. See http://www.metoperafamily.org/operanews/news/pressrelease.aspx?id=1086. During her 30-year career, she was best known for her roles in operas by Menotti (she sang the title role in his "Medium" at the Festival of Two Worlds in Spoleto, Italy, among other places), Hoiby, Honegger, Bernstein, Moore, Sullivan, Puccini, Mozart and Donizetti. She also appears with Beverly Sills on the 1974 recording of The Daughter of the Regiment; as the Old Lady in Candide's "Live from Lincoln Center" broadcast in 1986; and as Bloody Mary in South Pacific on Broadway. She retired in 1993 and died last year. The NY Times obituary (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/08/arts/music/08greenspon.html?ex=1294376400&en=154fa638ff5eb271&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) said, "Ms. Costa-Greenspon consistently won critical praise for her musicianship, singing and acting. After making her City Opera debut as Olga Olsen in Kurt Weill's "Street Scene" in 1963, she went on to sing everything from Augusta in Douglas Moore's "Ballad of Baby Doe" to the three mezzo roles in Puccini's "Trittico" to the Old Lady in Leonard Bernstein's 'Candide'...."

Frank Porretta: http://frankporretta.com/bio.html. A rising spinto tenor, who has sung mostly in Europe and is making his Met debut this year.

Hmm. Why list these people on the project page and then write about them here? Why not just go ahead and do the articles? They appear to be local singers that only New Yorkers (like yourself) would know about - not on the same level as the other singers listed (all major international artists) though IMO that is not a bar to them having articles. The point of the 'Can you Help?' section is to involve writers. Listing obscure, marginally-notable singers will put people off. One of the major problems with a project like ours is avoiding NewYork/London/Paris/You-name-it parochialism. We need to maintain an objective, international NPOV. - Kleinzach 08:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Impressionistic operas?

Apologies for the intrusion, I just figure this is the most direct route to getting some good advice. Kleinzach (who I see is a member here) posted Category:Impressionistic operas for deletion at WP:CFD here. I'm active at CFD, but I don't know... well, much of anything about the subject matter, so I was hoping some of you might have something to add to the discussion. The most important question is probably: how many operas could be categorized this way? In other words, is the article empty because the articles haven't been written, or because there really isn't much to say about it? Thanks for your time, wish you all well in your continued efforts. Luna Santin 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I think deletion is good here because it's a very vague category (Debussy often thought of as impressionist, but he himself rejected the label, apparently), and secondly because there isn't too much to say. Pelléas et Mélisande could possibly go into this category, but that's about it. Did Ravel, the other composer associated with musical impressionism in the popular mind, ever write an opera? Not to my knowledge. A one-entry dubious category probably isn't very useful. Moreschi 10:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

L'Enfant et les Sortilèges; but I agree. Septentrionalis 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Pelléas is actually a symbolist drama. La Mer could be called impressionistic but it's not an opera! (Ravel did write a couple of short operas, but neither could be called impressionistic.) - Kleinzach 11:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You guys know your stuff very well. Luna Santin 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't deserve that; stupid of me to forget L'heure Espagnole (though I hadn't heard of the other one), but the category should still be deleted. Moreschi 21:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Overlapping descriptive categories

A year or so ago someone made a series of overlapping descriptive categories for opera including: 1. Category:Children's operas (9 items), 2. Category:Fairy opera (11 items), 3. Category:Folk opera (4 items), 4. Category:Lyric fairy tale (3 items), 5. Category:Lyric legend (3 items). How many of these are really viable? Which should we keep and which should we merge? Any opinions? - Kleinzach 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Lyric legend" altogether and merge "Lyric fairy tale" with "Fairy Opera". Moreschi?

I suggest deleting them all, except for children's operas, which seems useful for parents. Fairy operas, like sailor operas, or any other category concerning a subject matter, doesn't seem enough of a connection among the operas that treat that subject. For instance, I like Marriage of Figaro, but a category for operas about marriage doesn't seem useful. Ssilvers 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd lose them all. I don't think they're used as genre names, and Ssilvers is right that cats like "Operas involving [noun]" generally aren't useful. Fireplace 22:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. For a start I have put Category:Lyric legend and Category:Lyric fairy tale up for deletion. (I am inclined to agree that Category:Children's operas is still viable. Definition doesn't seem to be a problem there.)

Incidentally it's likely that the root of the problem is that someone has probably translated (literally) the names of genuine (if minor) genre like Opéra féerie (a type of opéra-ballet) and Märchenoper (19th century German fairy-tale opera) into English at which point the names have lost any specific meaning they might have had. - Kleinzach 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest keeping folk opera, as that surely can't be very difficult to define. Moreschi 08:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the encyclopedias avoid the subject. Can you tell me which operas are 'folk operas'? Four are listed at present but I don't really know why they particularly qualify rather than other operas based in the countryside or on legends (rusalka etc.). Wikipedia is supposed to be based on references, i.e. we really need to find an article on 'Folk opera' to use as the basis for a category. If we can't do that then perhaps we shouldn't use it. - Kleinzach 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also put Category:Grotesque operas, Category:Modernist operas, Category:Morality plays and Category:Surrealist drama up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 8. I hope that is acceptable to everybody. Modernism in opera is extremely difficult to define and morality plays and surrealist drama are not very useful either. - Kleinzach 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok ,sorry for not writing back sooner. Here are a few of what I would consider folk operas (in no particular order of importance or anything like that):

The five already in the list
The Bartered Bride
Porgy and Bess
Glinka - A Life for the Tsar/Ruslan and Lyudmila
Rusalka
Jenufa
Carmen, possibly?

There are others, but these are a start. My definition of folk opera would be not only an opera that has a nationalistic theme, but that also uses the traditional musical traditions of that country. Cheers, Moreschi 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine each of us would produce a different list if pushed. (Your one has 10 east European titles, someone else might list lots of German works.) There is also a Category:Nationalist operas cat which includes two of the ones on your list (above). The big problem, IMO is that while folk music is composed by the folk, and folksongs are sung by the folk, folk operas are neither composed or performed by the (said) folk. (At best a few tunes may be included which they created). I still doubt whether it is a useful category, whether anyone can write an article about it. Kleinzach 17:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A valid point, considering Porgy and Bess is based on African-American folk music but was written by the son of Russian immigrants to the US; and Carmen is based on Spanish folk music but was written by a Frenchman. These operas were inspired by folk music - they do not exclusively contain it. --Alexs letterbox 03:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there appear to be no clear criteria for Category:Folk opera. I would delete. Marc Shepherd 18:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I have put Category:Folk opera up for deletion. - Kleinzach 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One minor thing/Alto

A search for the word "alto" goes to a disambig page, rather than the article on the voice type. I think this is wrong: the other stuff on that disambig page isn't nearly so important. I would prefer to see the search go straight to the page that most people will want, with a link provided to the disambig page at the top. What do other people think? The same is true for bass, but the articles on that disambig page are much more important and relevant than those on the alto disambig page. Best to all, Moreschi 18:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also the article is Alto (Voice) whereas we have Bass (Vocal range). - Kleinzach 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What Kleinzach said. When wikilinking vocal ranges, just use [[bass (vocal range)|]] or [[alto (voice)|]]. (Maybe one of those should be moved for consistency.) Fireplace 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to change the page previously called "Alto" to Alto (disambiguation) and the page previously called "Alto (voice)" to Alto, and have added the usual link to the dab page from the top of the latter and fixed a couple of double-redirects. The single redirects (from "Alto (voice)", "Contralto" and "Contraltos" do not need to be fixed, thank goodness, per Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Some of the Talk pages and a lot of the History may now be in the "wrong" place, but I don't think that's any big deal. Feel free to belabour me if I've messed anything else up or incurred the ire of Wikipedia administrators.

I notice that the ex-"Alto (voice)" talk page now attached to "Alto" points out that there is still some confusion between Mezzo-soprano and Alto, which doesn't surprise me, and it looks as if there may also be a need for a "Contralto" page rather than a redirect. I have absolutely no expertise in these matters, except that I know a real contralto when I hear one (Clara Butt, for instance), so I'll leave sorting that out to those who know. I also notice that a lot of the vocal-type pages are cluttered up with non-classical singers, but I suppose that's inevitable.

Onwards and upwards! --GuillaumeTell 17:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks a lot - and yes, sooner or later it will probably necessary to have a separate contralto page. At the moment, however, we've probably all got enough on our plates. Moreschi 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Opera categories

There is a category Operas. It has sub-categories for:

Many (but not all) operas with their own Wikipedia articles are categorized in Category:Opera. Usually, they are also categorized in the appropriate composer, genre, and language sub-categories, although the pages are far from consistent about it.

According to WP:CG, an article should not normally be in both a category and that category's parent. Yet, in various spot-checks, I have seen many opera articles that are in both Category:Operas and the relevant sub-category of "Operas by <so-and-so>". Same story for the language and genre sub-categories.

Is this an error, or was there a Project Opera policy decision to put all operas in Category:Operas as well as all relevant sub-categories? Marc Shepherd 22:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind....I found the answer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Categories. Marc Shepherd 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings from Tokyo. I don't have a wonderful connection but I hope this gets through. We decided a few months ago to list all the individual opera articles in Category:Operas in order to obtain a single complete listing which apparently was not possible using the three sub-cats. Does it any harm? Perhaps there is another better solution? It's worth bearing in mind that there are about 500 articles. - Kleinzach 12:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it got through. I've never been to Japan; hope you enjoy the trip. I don't see that there's a problem with the current system of categories. On a separate note, does anyone have any ideas about the disambig problems I detailed above? Cheers, Moreschi 13:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat suspected that that was the rationale, and I agree with it. As far as I've been able to ascertain, there is no better solution. Marc Shepherd 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)