Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 51

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 45

←

Archive 49

→

Archives Table of Contents

List of opera directors

Just stumbled across this one. Probably needs some cleanup - opera director is a redirect to this list, for one thing, when an "opera director" article strikes me as being quite valid on its own. Apart from that, the list needs updating and policing. We need to make a decision - are we going to try to make it exhaustive, or turn it into List of important opera directors and come up with some criteria for inclusion? Moreschi (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I started this one a couple of years ago as an inclusive list to generate (successfully) articles about major directors. I'm not in favour of a List of important opera directors - which could be a Pandora's box/can of worms the like of which we've never seen - but it would be good to underpin the list with a good article on opera direction (instead of a redirect!). The gen. public only has a hazy idea of what an opera director does and it would be good to explain. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, renaming it to List of important opera directors probably would open Pandora's box of worms (to mix a metaphor). But we ought to decide whether it needs special criteria for inclusion or is one which simply lists opera directors who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article (or deserve one). Personally, I'd go for the latter. There aren't vast numbers of Opera directors running around, unlike singers and composers. I doubt if it will need too much policing. It's not like 2nd-rate and/or barely notable singers and composers who are liberally added to all kinds of "distinguished" lists, e.g. Daniel Hambly being added right up there with Sir Geraint Evans and Hans Hotter in the list of prominent bass-baritones. [1]. I also think a dedicated article on opera directors would be a very good idea. There is one related article linked on the list page - Regietheater. In my view it's rather POV and at the moment, seems to be largely taken from one source. Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. So, opera director needs to become an independant article, Regietheater needs some clean up, and List of opera directors becomes a (possibly annotated?) inclusive list of opera directors who have Wikipedia biographies, or will have them in the future. Moreschi (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Tannhauser

Can someone help find sources in connection with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords of Thannhausen?DGG (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An obscure opera

Have any of you ever heard of an opera called Soirée? I heard mention of it in a biography on Thomas Schippers. I know it played at the Met in 1955 and 1956 but I can't find anything else about it, including the name of the composer.Nrswanson (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an opera, it was ballet using music by Rossini. See [2] and [3] Best Voceditenore (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clearing up that mystery for me.Nrswanson (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

An obscure Verdi opera?

I came across an opera by Verdi that i had never heard of in the Met database called Vittorio. Have any of you heard of it? It was performed in 1954 and 1955 at the Met.Nrswanson (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us some more details? Perhaps it was some kind of pastiche? -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There were six performances of the opera (in a double billing with Strauss' Salome), the first being on December 15, 1954. The roles were as follows:

Vittorio................Zachary Solov
Montefiore..............Yurek Lazowski [Debut]
Monsignore..............Edward Caton
Princess................Mia Slavenska
General.................Adriano Vitale [Debut]
Magalina................Jean Lee Schoch [Debut]
Fiamma..................Judith Younger [Debut]
Vittorio's Companions...Louis Kosman
Vittorio's Companions...Malcolm McCormick
Fiamma's Companions.....Diana Turner
Fiamma's Companions.....Viola Maiorca

Conductor...............Dimitri Mitropoulos [Debut]

Designer................Esteban Frances [Debut]
Choreographer...........Zachary Solov

I hope that helps.Nrswanson (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A ballet? Solov, Lazowski and Slavenska were dancers. --Kleinzach (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. it was a ballet. See:

"During the 1950s, in addition to conducting, accompanying and work in the prompt box he put his arranging skills at the service of the Met. In 1954 he created the full-length ballet Vittorio, based upon the ballets from some of Verdi’s operas (which had generally been omitted from Met productions), and principally upon the music for Un giorno di Regno, for the choreographer Zachary Solov. The performances of Vittorio were Dmitri Mitropoulos’ conducting debut at the Met." [4].

Usually this stuff can be resolved quickly via good ol' Google. Just do a search on the name of the work + the conductor's last name. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CotM and SotM: should we change the 3 month box to a 2 month box?

I think I have worked out how to reduce this box from three months' advance programming to two months. Is this still regarded as a good idea? -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There's been no response so I will leave it as it is. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Composer

This template has recently been created. See Composers Project. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone test "The Opera Critic" for me?

If there's someone here who doesn't have a subscription to The Opera Critic web site, could you please test this link for me and tell me what you get? I tried logging myself out to test it, but it doesn't seem to want me to log out. The reason I ask is that a new editor Theoperacritic has added external links to the pages on the site devoted to a particular singer on about a dozen singer articles here. But the site is subscription only ($36 a year) and generally inaccessible beyond the front page to non-subscribers. They may have made an exception for those particular singer pages, but if they can't be accessed unless people pay up, then the links should be removed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription; went there, found a large number of headlines/leaders for articles regarding Florez, the youngest one from 31-Jan-2008; there is a section about Future Plans (NY, Madrid, Dresden). Clicked on four links from different parts of the page; each click opened a new instance of IE7 with that article, which was on a foreign web site in each case.
Looks to me it's a collection of salient links, something like a RSS aggregator. HTH — Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll leave them all then because they can be very useful. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest news... Theoperacritic has been indefinitely blocked for spamming his/her own web site and having a user name which is the name of a commericial web site. Eventually the links were added to over 60 articles on opera singers and companies, and adminstrators have now reverted them all. I suspect the editor didn't quite understand about Wikipedia's definition of spamming, but these links would have definitely increased traffic to The Opera Critic which carries advertising and has paid subscriptions for much of the content. Even so, it's a pity. They were very useful for sourcing current productions and singers. Voceditenore (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the administrators' observations about http://theoperacritic.com/ (commercial, ads, subscriptions); I also agree with Voceditenore's assessment of that site's usefulness. I can't see how these administrators manage to justify the ubiquitous links to IMDB.com (IMO also useful). That site's commerciality doesn't seem to be all that different from theoperacritic's site, but maybe I just focus too much on the usefulness of a link from the readers' perspective, forgetting the "big picture" and "policy" issues involved, so close to the heart of administrators. Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't so much the commercial nature of the site, it's that the links were added by someone from the site who presumably would stand to gain from the increased traffic. If the owners of the IMDb started adding links to Wikipedia articles from a single purpose account, especially with a user name like IMDb, they'd get in trouble too. Apparently it's considered spam to add even one link to a site you own, even if the site is non-commercial and even if the link is highly useful. But, I've gone through the diffs and saved all the OC links on one of my user sub-pages. Which brings me to my next suggestion... Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Opera Project: new template

In response to some conversations we've been having recently, I've made a template for a Welcome to the Opera Project box, see Template:Opera welcome. Please suggest any necessary improvements. I'll be putting it on the talk pages of participants who had recently joined and would be particularly interested in their feedback.

The box can be recreated using the following code: {{Opera welcome}}

I'd also be really grateful if someone can tell me how to include a signature (for the person posting the welcome)! -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Lind

Anyone want to weigh in on the edit war that's going on there? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to post a similar thing! Mjroots (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filed two RFCs on this issue. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti - Infobox

I'm very troubled by a recent post on the Luciano Pavarotti talk page by a member of this project in regard to this - I have replied quite extensively there and invite interested parties to comment. Exxolon (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the participant was responding to a sock puppet attack. (The sock puppets have now been blocked). -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes referred to WikiProject Council

The infobox issue has been referred to the WikiProject Council, see Inappropiate Ownership Attempts. This really relates to the Classical music project, however the Opera Project is specifically mentioned. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) --- N.B. This was started by someone at Cambridge University using two different anonymous IPs. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ - Jay (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bio-Infobox guideline on the project page: a rewording

I would suggest re-wording the infobox guideline to emphasise that the consensus also reflects that of the Classical Music and Composer Projects. I also think it would be a good idea to state the reasons a little more clearly and to remove the second paragraph which is not only out-of-date, but can also be perceived as unfriendly. My suggestion for replacing the current material (based on an amalgam of the statements by the other two projects as well as the Visual Arts project who also don't really like them):

Note: Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of currently-available biographical infoboxes and especially those which have been designed for non-classical musicians is often counterproductive on opera singer and opera composer biographies. The information that can be given below the image in infoboxes is not sufficiently flexible, can lead to oversimplification and ambiguity, and, when placed at the head of the article, simply repeats information that should be in the first sentences in any case. No infoboxes should be added to opera singer or composer articles without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with the consensus reached by the participants at the Classical Music Project and the Composers Project.

This note can be added to pages when editing:

The following archives document the infobox discussions on the Opera and Composer projects: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (scroll down) [14] (scroll down) [15]

Comments? Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Model ammended Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the new wording with the clearer explanation, but how would it work with the existing texts? IMO we should keep the red-highlighted in-text note and also the links to the discussions (protesters invariably demand to be shown them). -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming the red-hightlighted stuff would remain. I should have been clearer, And it's also a good idea to point people to the various discussion archives. I've ammended the 'model' accordingly. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Definitely an improvement. -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am entirely in favour of this wording. Smerus (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and change the wording on the project page accordingly? Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we have a WikiProject Opera newsletter. Nothing444 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think we're a bit too busy to launch a newsletter. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as well.;-) The editor who made the suggestion has now been blocked indefinitely after various shenanigans all over Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Online resources sub-page for the Opera Project?

I have a load of links to reliable online sources in my "workshop". I periodically point some of them out here, but then they get lost when this page get archived. Would people find it useful if I made an OP sub-page "Online opera research" where these could be gathered all in one place, along with tips on searching newspaper archives, Google books, etc.? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be combined with a general section on referencing? At the moment we have a mention of reference formatting here. Could this be moved to a new section? --Kleinzach (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove the current referencing section. It's logical place is in the "article styles and formats" page since it provides a model for the actual writing and formatting of the article. Possibly a better solution is to have a "preface" on the online sources page concerning the referencing and use of online sources. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Doubtless this will all be clear when it's up. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure such a sub-page ("Online opera research") of helpful references as suggested by Voceditenore would indeed be useful to many editors. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My finished draft for Online opera research is here. Don't be scared by the photo. It's just there to keep me amused while I work.;-) Obviously I (or any other member) can add further sources as we find them once the page is up and running. Comments? Suggestions? I guess it's eventual address would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Online opera research? Also could someone test a couple of the Opera Critic links there to make sure they still work for non-subscribers. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bravo - a tour de force! I'd suggest '/Online research' to keep it simple, and maybe adding Operissimo and the La Scala archive (which used to be good), but it's a really impressive resource.--Kleinzach (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC) The Opera Critic links seem OK. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Forsooth, I blush.;-) I agree about the simpler title. Re the La Scala archive. Where is it?? They used to have a splendid one paid for by Accenture, but when the La Scala site got "re-vamped" a couple of years ago it seems to have disappeared. Re Operissimo, I could add it. But except for the singers who have paid to be listed, their information is often out of date, the discographies are hopeless and they crib the bios from wherever they can find them on the internet with no source given. I know because they cribbed one that I had written for another web site. I told them they could use it, but they needed to credit me as the author. Instead, they took it down and promptly cribbed a bio (now superceded) from the singer's management site (no source given). Frankly, for contemporary singers it's probably better to simply go to their official site or their managemnt's site. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I don't know where the Scala archive went to either . . . I've found Operaissimo useful for obscure role lists but admittedly they are not always accurate. -- Kleinzach (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on an excellent article.
Regarding Grove: their website says that many libraries provide access to their members and provides a "Library barcode user login"; however, I found that didn't work for my library card number. But then I found that the State Library of Queensland also offers a Grove Login facility, and that does work with the bar code on my library card. My point is: it may be worth pointing out on the "/Online research" page that such a program exists — I presume many other libraries would offer this, too.
Two more websites that I remember having used are Klassika and Operone (both entirely in German); neither is comparable to Grove, but they have at least skeleton information on the more obscure works/composers.
All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we make the page as prominent as possible. Perhaps this implies a new main section? Called 'Guides'? Maybe combined with the 'Images and fair use' section? (We can also mention the page in the 'Welcome' box.) --Kleinzach (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've published the new page (taking into account the above suggestions) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Online research. I've provisionally linked it:

On the main Opera Project page
- as new subsection (9.2) under Guidelines
- as a "see also" in the Images and fair use section
On the Article styles and formats page
- as a "see also" in the Sources and references section.

Obviously, the linking and placing on the page can be changed. But I thought it was at least important to get it up and reasonably prominently linked. If we ever decide to do re-structuring to have a separate "Guides" section, it can always be moved. But frankly, I'd leave well enough alone. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's not important, but the reason I suggested putting it in 'Guides' rather than 'Guidelines' was because the latter are really instructions, practices, or mini rules, whereas 'Online research' is more of a 'How to . . .' page . . . but no matter. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a new "Guides" section, what would go there besides Online research? I wasn't sure if I should start a whole new section just for one guide. I don't think combining it with Images and fair use is a terribly good idea as that is a "Guideline" as opposed to a "Guide" (if I've understood your distinction correctly). A "see also" to Online research under that guideline is probably better. Anyhow, feel free to move "Online research" to a separate "Guides" section if you think it's more appropriate. I'm not really fussed one way or another. I was just concerned to get it published and displayed on the Project page so people can find it and use it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I take all your points but I still think it's important to make it as prominent as possible so I've started a new section called 'Guide to online research'. If we subsequently have a guide to offline research, or something else, we can change the heading to 'Guides'. Thanks again. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coding problem?

Hello all. The new opera article assessments are not populating the subcategories at Category:Opera articles by quality (except for the stubs). Is this a coding problem, or is there some reason that the Opera project doesn't want the articles to populate the categories? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor who is very technically proficient writes: There are some coding problems with the project banner. Namely, the coding of the categories is not correct. If you want to fix it yourself, I would suggest starting here. OR, if you would rather, I could make up a new, working banner for you. Just take a look at Template:Musicals-project and tell me what from that you would want on the banner, and I'll make a mock-up later tonight! Happy editing! --omtay 38 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no coding problem. This relates to past decisions of the project. Thanks for the offer, but in any case we'll be discussing our sytem with the very able person who set it up for us in the next week or so. We have more than 4,000 articles so this has to be done carefully - and in line with the wishes of the project participants.--Kleinzach (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty-o. It was simply brought to my attention by a fellow wikipediaian who knew I had developed the Template:Musicals-project. (BTW, I had in no way intended doing anything against the "wishes of the project participants," I simply wanted to offer a helping hand). In any case, best of luck with your template and your WikiProject. If I can every be of service, please let me know! Cheers! --omtay 38 02:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Our present guru has been very good to us, but if it doesn't work out for any reason in the future, perhaps we can get in touch? Best regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Kazuhiro Ito

I have put this one up for deletion at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazuhiro Ito. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vienna State Opera

This used to be a rather limited article. Cricketgirl has now done a great job in translating additional material from the long German wiki article, so the page is now ready for (considerable) editing and reorganization. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

La cambiale di matrimonio

Hello folks. I just created this page on La cambiale di matrimonio. The only reason that I am advertising this fact is that this is the first Wikipedia article that I have ever created. I am very much interested in Opera and would like to participate in this Wikiproject. I have access to Grove Music Online, which may help. Since I have never created a page before on Wikipedia, I encourage you to please point out to me what I did wrong so I can avoid mistakes in the future.

It's just a stub right now. I am working on a synopsis and more background concerning this opera. Theshoveljockey (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated and welcome to the project! Great to have you. I've already made a couple of small changes to the article - putting into the farse category - but it looks great. We've still got a couple of other Rossini operas to do if you're interested! (See the Composer of the Month at the top of the project page.) Best --Kleinzach (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. I made some small changes:

We spell Gioachino with one c;
dates should be formatted with [[day month]] [[year]] or [[month day]] [[year]]; this will display the date according to the reader's preference;
try to avoid REDIRECTs by linking to the exact title;
I linked "libretto";
I unlinked the second occurrence of "opera" — only the first occurrence of a term should be linked, unless the later occurrences are much later;
I added the interwiki links to the French and Italian Wikipedias, as well as adding this English version there.

You might also consider using the "Show preview" button before saving you edits; this will allow you to consolidate several edits and avoid clogging up the "Recent changes" and the page's history.

Again, good work, and thank you. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the suggestions. I have added Roles and Synopsis sections to the page. I will probably look into researching some of those other pages you need added when done with this one. Theshoveljockey (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Demetrio e Polibio has been created as well. Theshoveljockey (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)