Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70→Archive 75
Archives Table of Contents

External linking role tables

I've contacted Michael Bednarek about, inter alia, the role table in the forthcoming Love and Other Demons. He's wikilinked the singers who already have WP entries, but instead of redlinking or not linking the rest, he's put in external links to their bios on the Glyndebourne website. I don't think that we've done anything like this before, and I'm not sure it's a very good idea - see our correspondence here. Anyone thoughts, anyone? --GuillaumeTell 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this wikilinking goes against existing conventions for differentiating internal WP and external links. I've commented here and I hope others will too. --Kleinzach 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This sort of linking is not in keeping with Wikipedia:External links.Nrswanson (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we haven't made any progress on this problem during the last week. According to Michael Bednarek "this issue is very low on my to-do list because I consider the current state not as unsatisfactory" (sic).

The Wikipedia:External links guideline ( "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" ) - includes:

"Important points to remember 3. External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; . . . Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox."

However Michael Bednarek says:

"AFAIK there is no policy prohibiting external links in the body of an article, only a guideline (MOS:LINK) . . . . I don't see a problem. I didn't breach any policy. The guideline allows exceptions, and I believe those can and should be applied where I used this style of linking. . . ."

However five, six or seven 'exceptions' on each page can't be called 'occasional'. I'm asking Michael Bednarek to kindly reconsider reverting his edits. So far we know this involves Love and Other Demons, The Fly (opera) and Chlestakows Wiederkehr, maybe other pages as well. --Kleinzach 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Just nipping in from deepest darkest Tuscany with an extremely slow internet connection. It seems to be that the thing to do is to add the singer bio links as references/notes instead of external links either within the article (distracting and not optimal, as per MoS) or in the External links sections (less appropriate since they verify the singer's role in the production and are therefore arguably a ref). Take a look at Love and Other Demons. I've done the first one (Alison Bell) this way. My connection is too slow to do the others now, but they can be easily sorted out later. Best to all Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done the rest of the links in Love and Other Demons in the same style. Only problem is the repeat under Notes and references. How can we make it 1 a,b,c,d etc? --Kleinzach 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've now fixed The Fly (opera) and Chlestakows Wiederkehr. Michael Bednarek is apparently unable to tell us which other articles have been formatted in this way. He is also too busy to help us correct the pages. Meanwhile he's been converting a long series of hyphens to en dashes on The opera corpus. . . . --Kleinzach 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Participants/book legend on project page

Adopting an idea from the Ballet Project, I've added a book icon (to show access to reference works) to the list of participants on the project page here. This is an experiment. If there are any objections, I'll remove it - otherwise please make use of it! --Kleinzach 00:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discography for singers

I've noticed that there are no discographies for opera singers like Pavarotti and Domingo. Are discographies frowned on? Should I include them? Copana2002 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a Domingo discography, see Plácido Domingo discography, also a Enrico Caruso discography. They are certainly not frowned on, though they take a lot of time to compile, see also Pelléas et Mélisande discography and The Flying Dutchman discography. Let us know if you intend to work on any new ones! Best. --Kleinzach 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do not have Pavarotti’s discography. Perhaps you could help compile and start a new article for it. We could help adding on based on what we have or know - Jay (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Right now I am working on Gino Quilico. Since he is a lesser known singer, can I just include his discography within the article or is it necessary to create a separate article? Copana2002 (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It is fine with me. You can always transfer the whole list to a new article when the list grows someday. It is much informative if you could have the recording company, catalogue number, album title and the year released.- Jay (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can add a model 'contemporary singer discography' sample to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats? I was going to suggest using Plácido Domingo discography as a model but the music CD sections lack catalogue numbers etc. (The DVD/VHS sections, on the other hand, are excellent.) --Kleinzach 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
One problem with discographies is function: are the recordings listed to give a representation of a performer's "best" work? Or is the list so that people can get a recording? I feel the later is a mistake because recordings are deleted and reissued in new formats with such regularity as to make such lists quickly outmoded. If the first function, who is determine what is the "best" or "most representative" work? I predict many controversies and warring, sometimes just to see if every recording can be listed. Granted, there are some very underrepresented singers for whom note of their recordings is significant (i.e. those who appear only the Mapleson Cylinders, or those who made only a handful of commercial recordings), but I wonder what would be the point of adding discographies. I'm open to hear. -- kosboot (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I always assume that our articles (in general) are used for a multiplicity of different purposes by fans/performers/admin/business people etc. What do you think of the existing discographies? --Kleinzach 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I just glanced at some and I think they're all problematic. Again, it comes down to function. I looked at the Enrico Caruso discography which is (sorry to say) pretty awful - it's just a list of tracks, containing almost none of the information that one gets from a real discography (and to recognize the complexities of Caruso's recording career is really quite interesting). If it were my choice, I'd delete that horrible article (or change the title) and just direct users to the latest published discography, and supplement it (by any new discoveries, of which there's been at least one). The Pelléas et Mélisande discography is better (it gives dates, companies, casts), but still problematic because a "real" discography is supposed to provide a lot more information which is not in these articles. Really: they're not discographies, just 'lists. Of course, on Wikipedia, people will do what they want, but it seems a true shame to let these articles pass as "discographies" when they're far from it - more like lists done by people in their spare time. Sorry to be so negative. -- kosboot (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about Enrico Caruso discography. A real discography would list the original 78 recordings not CDs. On the other hand, I disagree about the Pelléas et Mélisande discography. Discographies are lists. This one has a lot of useful information, perhaps it could have more - what would you want? - but it's a lot more detailed than we have for other operas. --Kleinzach 09:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I will add Domingo's music CD catalogue numbers when I have the time. The problem about that old man is, he is damn too much. His CD recordings are too many! Give me some time, i will get it done. - Jay (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the out-dent - but continuing from Kleinzach - at its most simple, a discography may seem like a list, but true discographies give much more information than just what was recorded, to providing not just context but details of recording (I'm sure every one of those Pelleas recordings are much more complex than indicated). But to get to the practical matter of considering whether discographies should be included in Wikipedia Opera Project articles, I would say that a good quality discography is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and that authors should refer to published discographies. As a consolation, they could mention "a number" of representative recordings. The aim would be to relieve Wikipedia participants from assembling extensive lists, particularly if they are just copied from published sources. Having seen bad and good discographies, and knowing how useful a good discography can be (and what an immense amount of work they can be), I feel strongly about it. But if everyone overrules me - I accept it. -- kosboot (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no shortage of paper here. Articles - including discographies - can be as long as we think necessary. The ability to link means that WP discographies are potentially more useful than paper ones - not to mention that our reach is so much greater. (For every reader of the (niche publication) Record Collector [1] we must have a thousand.)
Obviously discographies are not a priority for us at the moment. We are still concentrating on more basic articles. However if you like to work in this field I'm sure we'll all be delighted. If you feel that Pelléas et Mélisande discography and The Flying Dutchman discography are inadequate then please go ahead and create models for us. To make it easier, you could start with a major singer who recorded very little such as Olive Fremstad, Francesco Tamagno or Nina Koshetz or whoever. How about it? --Kleinzach 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kleinzach; I'll pass on the discographies - but thanks for a very reasoned answer. -- kosboot (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Amy Shoremount-Obra

I have nominated this article for deletion.Nrswanson (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Orchestra Instrumentation

I have a quick question about orchestra instrumentation in operas. Should we use orchestra instrumentation for any opera? I am a new member here at this Wikiproject, but I have been an experienced editor at Wikipedia. Any helpful information is very much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Greg Jones II 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Many articles do have sections on orchestration, see for example La bohème or Boris Godunov. (The section should go after the synopsis, but we don't yet have a standard format.) If you want to add similar sections to other opera articles, I'm sure it will be welcomed. --Kleinzach 02:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Viking/Penguin Opera Guide is a good basic source for orchestra instrumentation, though coverage is patchy - some opera articles just say FULL ORCHESTRA, whatever that is - and it usually doesn't go into great detail, especially in areas like percussion sections. --GuillaumeTell 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Composer of the Month: September

Will we continue with the list of individual operas by significant composers? With the early 20th century? This is the list we have at the moment:

Any thoughts? Additional works? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I could do more than stubs for most of them, but the people who added them to the list of missing operas might want to deal with them. If we went this way, then I'd say leave the Hindemith operas to one side - because there are some others of his we have yet to do - and add the following from the list to round off the 20th century:
Actually we've also got:
The two latter titles are both redirects.--Kleinzach 03:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much back in action now. I'm happy with the above list, and can volunteer to do the Zandonai, Maw and Turnage. I'll try and beef up some of the August ones (e.g. Evangelimann, Vestale) as well before the 31st. --GuillaumeTell 10:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've posted these now. --Kleinzach 11:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tales of Hoffman (sic)

I don't really want to get into all the arguments about the name on the talk page but surely The Tales of Hoffman (single "n") is wrong. Can we move it to a "Hoffmann" version? --Folantin (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Now moved to The Tales of Hoffmann (opera). --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. Apparently GTBacchus changed the spelling in February. --Kleinzach 08:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he thought it was about Dustin Hoffman...--Folantin (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
However there's no ambiguity so the title should be The Tales of Hoffmann (now a redirect) not The Tales of Hoffmann (opera). We need help from an admin . . . --Kleinzach 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a possibility. I assumed that title was already being used by another page when I saw this "Les contes d'Hoffmann (in English: The Tales of Hoffmann) is an opera...". I didn't realise the link there took you right back to the very page you were reading (I've seen this happen several times recently and it's very annoying - it often gives the impression missing articles already exist). Plus, the talk page discussion indicated there was some ambiguity about the film of the same name. --Folantin (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought a redirect back to the same page was impossible but it seems it isn't now. --Kleinzach 09:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bots on the loose/'rewriting' references

Several bots are being used to automatically rewrite references with sometimes unpredictable results. I and some other editors have already complained about Polbot, see here, but there seem to be others (e.g. DumZiBoT). It seems approval has been given prematurely to bot operations which should really have been tested first. Problems can be reported to the Bot owners' noticeboard. --Kleinzach 00:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The considerable controversy that has developed about this is here and here. --Kleinzach 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Altino

I have nominated this article for deletion.Nrswanson (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The decision here was:

"The result was Keep. This discussion requires the attention of an expert in the subject; as most of the opinions here came with a built-in disclaimer. If somebody can locate an authoritative reference on this subject or an expert who can shed some light on the matter, then it would be wise to relist this at that time. As it was, however, there was no consensus for deletion, and the deletion policy advises we lean toward keep in such situations."

Surprising! I thought Amy Shoremount-Obra might be kept but Altino was sure to be deleted! I'd support relisting if we are agreed this is spurious and enough bodies are willing to say so. --Kleinzach 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. --Kleinzach 07:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've kind of become the unofficial director of the featured sound process, I just wanted to encourage everyone here that, if they can find any public domain or otherwise free-use recordings of music that we would welcome your suggestions for featured sounds at WP:FSC. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of us here are basically text editors. Voceditenore has done some work on images and has produced a short guide to image sources. AFAIK none of us have worked on recordings.
Neverthless we have hundreds of articles on singers whose recordings should now be out of copyright. Many of these are listed in The Record of Singing. If you, or someone else at WP:FSC, is willing to lead the way and do the technical stuff, I'm sure we can suggest suitably famous recordings. --Kleinzach 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Union Avenue Opera Theatre

I have nominated this page for deletion. As you all may know, I am generally a supporter of articles on notable amateur companies when well wriiten/sourced but this one has no references, was created by an SPA, and I think may be trying to establish itself as a professional institution, a fact which is highly unclear given the company's history and the company's lack of participation in organizations like OPERA America. All comments welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at this but I'm not sure about it. They claim to be professional, not amateur. I assume this means that they hire singers, at least for major roles. Where does their orchestra come from? According to a review i've seen, the chorus is small and is probably amateur - maybe even the church choir! --Kleinzach 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure myself to be honest. That's why I nominated it. I think they started out as amateur but have possibly moved towards professional recently, at least in the main roles area. The performances were initially at the church but I think they have sense built a performance space for the productions. The website isn't very clear on whether they are amateur or professional. From looking at the cast lists the performers all seem to be unknowns. Regaurdless, I can't find any press on them in Opera News or other publications outside of Saint Lewis. They aren't a part of OPERA America, which would be odd for a professional company in the US.Nrswanson (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is why I asked about their orchestra. In Japan there are a lot of borderline 'professional' opera companies but the acid test is whether or not they hire a real orchestra. --Kleinzach 06:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC) P.S. They are still in the church - see the second reference I found (on the page). --Kleinzach 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEG3yZ4e_hY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.28 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Union Avenue Opera is a professional company and has been paying singers for over 10 years. While they are cosidered a "D" house in terms of budget and size, I can assure you that they are professional and their productions are generally quite good. The orchestra contains many people from the St. Louis Symphony. In recent years, they have been able to hire a few more notable singers, as their budget increases. The chorus is also paid....not the church choir, believe me! Singers are flown in and housed at donors homes- just like Opera Theatre of St. Louis. You could consider Union Avenue Opera to be the "New York City Opera" of St. Louis, with Opera Theatre of St. Louis being the "Met" of St. Louis. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.171.28 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. "a few more notable singers" - do you have any names? --Kleinzach 20:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The result was no consensus/default keep. --Kleinzach 03:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help at Pietro Mascagni

I have recently come across a bit of a conumdrum on the Pietro Mascagni article. I have found evidence of some additional operas by the composer such as I Bianchi ed i Neri at here and in this Opera News article here. However another editor Ebruchez (talk · contribs) (oddly an SPA on Pietro Mascagni since 2006) insists they do not exist in spite of the evidence. I myself am not a Mascagni authority but having found two different references (at least to the one opera) from what I have always found to be reliable sources it makes we question the claim of Ebruchez. Can anyone clarify? See Talk:Pietro Mascagni also. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First, none of my Reliable Printed Sources (Grove, Viking, Oxford Dictionary of Opera) list any of these works. Second, Erik Bruchez (whom I do not know) has been around for a long time and is largely responsible for this impressive Mascagni site. The SPA isn't as odd as all that - he clearly is a BIG Mascagni enthusiast. Where the Stanford site got its info from I have no idea (and I don't think that the site is being maintained any longer - there are various errors in the Rossini section), but I'd guess that the Opera News piece got I Bianchi ed i Neri from there. It all reminds me of the spurious Bizet opera that we had some difficulty with a while ago - a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on. --GuillaumeTell 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Both Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians and the 1947 edition of A Short History of Opera by Donald Jay Grou list I Bianchi ed i Neri as being a Mascagni opera from 1940. Not sure how accurate they are, though. Copana2002 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've searched the Amadeus Almanac for I Bianchi ed i Neri, I bianchi ed i neri, Bianchi ed neri etc. and found nothing. As GT has noted it's not in the list of complete works in Grove (article by Michele Girardi). (Grove normally list incomplete, abandoned and unperformed works.) Our Mascagni article calls it a 'project contemplated'. Maybe that's about right? --Kleinzach 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we should have a policy of not using the Stanford OperaGlass as a first source - only as a supporting one? I don't think it's reliable enough to use for unsupported information. --Kleinzach 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As a resolution to this, I have created a new section on the Pietro Mascagni page with a list of projects that Mascagni contemplated but never actually completed. I believe that's the right place for Zilia, Scampolo, and I Bianchi e i Neri, and that in order for those to be promoted to the level of actual works created by Mascagni, very strong evidence is needed since the world's top Mascagni experts like Roger Flury and Alan Mallach do not recognize them as such. As for the Stanford page, is is clearly in error to list these works the way it does, given the lack of serious evidence that these operas were anything more than projects. As pointed out above, sources refer to each other and so these titles keep coming up, but some sources are clearly more reliable than others. I think that the books by Flury and Mallach in particular are to be considered above most other sources, as they are serious scholarly works and they go back to sources as reliable as can be found, including Mascagni's letters (Mallach in particular went to Bagnara di Romagna in Italy where he got access to the 4000 or so letters written by Mascagni to his mistress from about 1910 to 1945).Ebruchez (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's good, though I've removed the red links from Zilia, Scampolo, and I bianchi e i neri in case these appear to invite articles on these titles. Best regards. --Kleinzach 07:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied from stub sorting discussion

According to CatScan, there are 38 articles under Category:Opera stubs which could be marked with some type of opera-bio-stub, including articles from Category:Opera critics, Category:Opera composers, Category:Opera directors, Category:Opera managers, Category:Opera designers, and Category:Opera librettists. Other types which would be less viable would be Category:Opera houses (18 articles) & Category:Opera festivals (10). Although the Opera Project has done some superb housecleaning as noted above, if they are amenable to any further splits I would suggest a {{opera-bio-stub}} per the numbers I have given. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an opera-bio-stub is needed at the moment as the numbers are small. Editors would be unlikely to use the new stub much - if and when they did use them the articles would probably be overlooked. --Kleinzach 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I've suggested this stub sorting discussion be closed. All other discussions of this period have been switched off. --Kleinzach 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Still no closure . . . --Kleinzach 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Still none. --Kleinzach 02:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Article 5,000 is here! La púrpura de la rosa

Congratulations to everyone! Article 5,000 (La púrpura de la rosa) is up and running. It needs work though. I created it quickly so that we would have an interesting article in terms of opera history as we hit the benchmark. All help is welcome.Nrswanson (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations all, especially the long-time editors who have contributed most.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to all indeed! And thanks to Nrswanson for making La púrpura de la rosa number 5000. I've just been adding information. Does anyone know about recent performances etc.? There are three modern recordings. It would be great if someone could do a full synopsis. As this is a kind of flagship article it would be good to make it an impressive one. --Kleinzach 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and put a DYK nom. for the article. It would be nice to get article 5,000 on the main page. We will need to put in inline citations though in order to get it approved.Nrswanson (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to VoceDiTenore, I think this is now up to at least good article article standard. Would anyone like to propose it? As a contributor I don't think I should do this myself. --Kleinzach 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been coming along well. But I'm not sure it's ready for GA yet. The writing in both the lead paragraph and in the Music section is still a bit 'choppy', and the Music section should probably be expanded as well. I also have a query about the refs. In La púrpura de la rosa, this ref is given for "Torrejón y Velasco" in Grove:
  • Stein, Louise K (1992), "Torrejón y Velasco, Tomás de" in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, ed. Stanley Sadie (London) ISBN 0-333-73432-7
But in the Tomás de Torrejón y Velasco article, this one is given:
Which one has the correct author?
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I inserted the Stein ref. which is correct (I've checked). Given that the ISBN is the same, both refs should be to the same print version, so I'll change the biography. --Kleinzach 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've just checked and I see that I originally gave Stein as the ref for the biography, but Nrswanson changed it to Stevenson. I wonder if Stevenson wrote the online version? Nrswanson? --Kleinzach 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I was copy pasting Stevenson in for another article off of the online version and accidentally saved it to the wrong article. My fault. Unintentional error between working with multiple open windows. Nrswanson (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

5,000 up: blowing our own trumpet

If we are going to blow our trumpet - and non-one else is going to do it for us - now is the time! People in the opera world are largely unaware of our work. They associate Wikipedia with internet/tech, popular culture. WP Science articles have been in the media spotlight, but not arts ones.

Should we do some short press releases to send to the main opera publications, houses etc? (The necessary contact details are available.) If so, could we have volunteers to represent us? Maybe one in Britain and one in the States? Communications of this kind would need to be made with real names and addresses etc. (I'm in Japan so I don't qualify for the job, though I can do a notice for Opera-L.) P.S. I'm less keen on celebrating here on WP, because we may just be regarded as a juicy (i.e. edit-count-spree) dataset, and there's the usual prospect of being accused of 'ownership'. --Kleinzach 04:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly volunteer to help with the British effort (although I'm away from my computer till Sunday pm). We do need to emphasise that not all of the 5000 articles are perfect(!) and that extra contributors will be very welcome.
As for Wikipedia, we do have Shoemaker's Holiday's offer of a slot in Wikipedia Signpost. --GuillaumeTell 13:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on a draft notice to show it to everybody next week. Do we have a volunteer for America? --Kleinzach 13:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to be honest and admit I'm not sure how quick I can get to it, though: I have a pretty severe cold just now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. That kind of coverage is very worthwhile. --Kleinzach 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, to tell the world about our works is good but we have to make sure they are in "good conditions" when these people read / review them. For eg, when I asked for Domingo photos from his PR / Manager, the article was heavily edited by someone who claimed that Domingo lied about his age. This kind of problem is something that we have to "do something" about it. Many people know Wikipedia articles are open for everyone and that is why to some people, Wiki contents are not reliable. - Jay (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP has been adding links to pages in the International Jose Guillermo Carrillo Foundation sound archives, e.g. [2]. (Foundation appears to be linked to the Universitario de Tecnología Industrial “Rodolfo Loero Arismendi” in Venezuela.) The files are good quality, but two issues:

  • He/she gives no indication what the link is about. I've fixed this for Nellie Melba article [3], but haven't the time to do the others.
  • Some of the links must surely be to recordings still in copyright, e.g. the ones for the Maria Callas, Marian Anderson, Renata Tebaldi, etc.

Perhaps someone else could take a look at articles in Special:Contributions/190.200.116.70? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein - opera composer or musical theatre composer?

I’m confused with Leonard Bernstein status. Is he an opera composer or musical theatre composer? I am currently checking opera corpus list – to create navigation template for composers with more than 3 articles created. I don’t know whether I should create "Opera template" for his articles, I don’t know whether his works can be considered "opera" or "half opera"? What do you guys think? Refer Opera corpus entry Leonard Bernstein (1918–1990): Candide, A Quiet Place, Trouble in Tahiti, West Side Story. - Jay (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify West Side Story as an opera (although not everyone might agree with me), which means there are only three . There's already one of those horizontal type nav boxes which incoporates his all operas and musical theatre works on Wikipedia. You can see an example at the bottom of Trouble in Tahiti. Why not stick with that? And speaking of Trouble in Tahiti, what an eye-opener! ;-) I've just tagged it for multiple issues and added a few external links if anyone wants to tackle improving it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
He's one of those borderline composers, who has successfully cross-pollinated both traditions. Other possiblities include "On the Town" (An expansion of an original ballet; regularly performed by the English National Opera), and a (very) weak claim for "Wonderful Town". I don't really think it's worth worrying too much about definitions with a composer like Bernstein, better to be pragmatic, keep all his works together (at least within a template!), and save the arguments for academia. Frankly, a lot of the designations of his works seem to be based on whether they first appeared in a theatre ddicated to musicals, or one dedicated to opera - hardly the most rigourous of criteria, but, there you go =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, I'll skip Bernstein - Jay (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a better template for Bernstein would be entitled "Stage works by Leonard Bernstein" and in that way classsification of the works in question can be discussed on the actual articles.Nrswanson (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems a good option. If necessary, we can always co-claim ambiguous works with the musical theatre project, after all. There's no actual need to firmly decide. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the article has already have the navigation template, I dont think there is a need to create one like our standard template. I didn’t realize it at first because the template is at the bottom. I remembered we had this discussion some time ago about whether to place the template at the top right or bottom, and the majority prefer "Top right" because it can be easily seen. - Jay (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Candide, A Quiet Place and West Side Story all have their own entries in Opera Grove. But I agree that "Stage works by..." is the way to go. --GuillaumeTell 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything written above. I don't think there are any real issues here, after all most composers have worked outside opera, so there is nothing new here. I hope we can avoid duplicating navboxes which just cause clutter (there is a problem currently with the Michael Nyman ones, see The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat where box-o-mania has currently taken over).
I think it's good to use consistent file names for the 'Operas by composer templates', but we can be flexible about the actual text that appears in the boxes using 'operas', 'operettas', 'stage works' or whatever as appropriate.
The Musical Theatre articles are edited in totally different style for ours, so we've been at pains to avoid double bannering. (In order to avoid problems 'broadway operettas' have been MT bannered, and I think we should leave West Side Story to them. In fact it would be madness to do otherwise! --Kleinzach 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If there's practical issues with the ambiguous works, then by all means let's come to a gentlemen's agreement over it with regards to whose formatting is used. Of course, we should probably leave the ambiguous works in the corpus, unless the ambiguity is pretty weak and the case for "No, actually, they aren't operas" strong. Grove is a great reference work, but forgive me if this be heresy: I don't think that non-inclusion there necessarily proves anything. For instance, A Quiet Place was written to be the second half of Trouble in Tahiti - so how can one be an opera, and the other not? But Guilliame does not list Trouble in Tahiti as being in Grove. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
There's no need for two articles in Opera Grove, since the article on A Quiet Place includes discussion of Trouble in Tahiti, which it subsumes. --GuillaumeTell 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday: Please see the archives for past discussions - there's a lot of history here and it's well indexed. It was agreed that The opera corpus should be inclusive, but it has never been used to stake out territory. (The purpose of the corpus was to systematically develop coverage, i.e turn red into blue.) We've always thought of the Opera Project as a kind of 'Chinese Empire', so vast in its extent, that we can give away whole kingdoms without even noticing. (In any case, the MT group of editors generally do an excellent job with English-language works.) --Kleinzach 01:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stability of The opera corpus since September 6

This article had a preamble that explains the selection criteria: "The principal works of the major composers are given as well as those of historical importance in the development of the art form. . . . This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works."

We've encouraged editors to put complete lists of works in biographical articles, while using The opera corpus to list major works for which we intended to write articles. The standard for 'major works' being a dedicated article in Grove or similar publication. (All operas that already have articles have also been added to the list.)

Up to 6 September The opera corpus was a stable and slowly growing list for which there were accurate stats. Unfortunately since then we've seen a huge number of edits - both additions and deletions. This threatens the usefulness of a unique list of major works that's been our roadmap for developing coverage. I've asked the editors involved to stop working on the list so we re-establish the integrity of the article. Perhaps we should discuss problems, issues here? --Kleinzach 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with some of Kleinzach's assertions. First, I found multiple existing articles on operas not included in the corpus which I recently added so not all opera articles are listed in the corpus. I suspect that there are a number of composers with opera articles that are currently not represented. Second, I think the fact that people are wanting to edit this list is because the opera corpus is either incomplete and/or the list does not have a clearly defined set of perameters. I think we need to iron out some clearly defined guidelines for the content included there. Unlike what Kleinzach suggests, the current list does not reflect the description that is in the lead. There are numerous obscure operas that are not in Grove and are not that notable that have been on the list for months. There are also major composers missing from the list and the list includes obscure unimportant works that, although by major composers, should really not be included under the supposed guidelines in the lead. From my perspective it is a rather haphazard collection that either needs a rigorous methodical rewrite or a rephrasing of the lead allowing for minor operas by major composers and the inclusion of more minor composers. I understand that Kleinzach may want to use this list for statistical reasons at this present moment, given the 5,000 article landmark and the pending media coverage. For this reason I am ok with not adding anything new right now. However, since the corpus is the vehicle through which the project's expansion is directed, I think members like myself who contribute regularly to the opera project should be able to include content there that we are interested in working on without being restricted by the coverage in Grove, partiularly sense Grove has limmited coverage on more recent opera productions. Regardless of where we go with this list, I think some more clearly defined criteria or at least a more accurate description of the content included in the corpus needs to be established. Perhaps the easiest thing would be to make the corpus more inclusive than it already is. That way there wouldn't be a need to prune it and people can freely add composers and operas, major or minor, along the lines of their interests. The other option is to set guidelines and restrict the content. If we were to actually enforce what was in the lead I would say about half of the current list would be chopped. Nrswanson (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hold your horses! You've misunderstood my intentions here. The corpus (of 6 Sept.) was indeed incomplete (and no doubt included many titles that shouldn't have been there) and I'm not criticizing your additions although I never had time to go through and look at them. My impression was that you were adding one or two titles per new composer which was good. However Jerome Kohl was also deleting a series of titles following my questioning of his complete list of Gérard Pape operas.
Frankly I just don't know where we are now and a large part of the work I was doing for the 5,000th article celebration has gone out of the window. I realize that your intervention and reversion of Jerome Kohl's deletion are well-meaning but I (and I assume the project as a whole) simply can't keep up with your massive production of opinions about this article. The problems we had with Kathleen Battle only affected that article, but problems with The opera corpus affect the continuing viability of the project as a single unit. --Kleinzach 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the deletions Jerome Kohl was making, many of them were of operas that actually have articles in Grove. Since you were adding operas that had articles in Grove I was assuming that you wouldn't want those deleted. Hence why I reverted his deletions. He also removed some composers/operas I had just added and was planning to write articles on. From what I saw of your conversation with Jerome I don't know how he could have come away with the decision to delete what he did. Regardless, that's not really important now. What needs to happen to get things running smoothly? I'm not trying to create waves here and I don't want to interupt the smooth process we have going here. It's honestly not a huge deal to me to let things go back to the way they were. If it's easier for you, I am ok with you reverting the article to last version where we have an accurate stats count.Nrswanson (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the Jerome Kohl deletions in detail but he certainly should not have taken out links to actual articles. If we reverted to September 6, would you be able to re-insert your additions and update the stats as you go? Would you be able to do this? After that we could address some of the other issues with the list and try to remove some of the non-notable works that have been added over past months. --Kleinzach 07:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Certainly. Sounds like a plausible solution.Nrswanson (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the question has been asked, I can tell you that I removed no links to actual opera articles. What I deleted were (1) the Eaton operas Kleinzach asked me to remove, and (2) redlinks that had been in place for over a year with no article created (these did result in removing two bluelinks to composer articles, but with no opera titles left, there seemed no point). Evidently a year is too short a lag time for this project, and I apologise for any inconvenience, but I think this discussion of criteria for inclusion/exclusion is long overdue. FWIW, I agree with Nrswanson that Grove's coverage of recent opera is "limited". Grove Opera has had some online additions, but no new edition since 1992, and the main New Grove similarly has had some sporadic online additions, but basically dates back to 2001.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Jerome Kohl: that's untrue. You removed Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli's Giulietta e Romeo, see [4] and Johan Rudolf Zumsteeg's Das Pfauenfest, see [5]. Altogether you deleted 11 composers and all their works. You removed a total of 44 operas. It was a WP:POINT attack. --Kleinzach 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Correction: I now see that the articles on Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli's Giulietta e Romeo and Johan Rudolf Zumsteeg's Das Pfauenfest were written after Jerome Kohl's deletion of the links. Apologies for that misunderstanding however it's difficult to see what was going on. --Kleinzach 00:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I never meant to infer that Jerome had deleted blue linked operas only that he had deleted operas that were covered in Grove which I was assuming you and GuilliameTell wanted to keep on the list. Nrswanson (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Nrswanson: Thanks. I've reverted to the last edit of 5 Sept. Can you re-insert your additions and update the stats? After that we can discuss any necessary deletions and changes to the introduction (and criteria for inclusion). --Kleinzach 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I would prefer to hold off on editing the corpus until we decide what we want to do with it. That way any work I put in will be in keeping with whatever is decided.Nrswanson (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It's agreed that titles with entries in Grove (or Oxford or Viking) are eligible. That hasn't changed so I suggest you go ahead and enter them. Refining the list is a medium-term project. --Kleinzach 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I went back and added things back with careful attention to statistics.Nrswanson (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, what is the purpose of The Opera Corpus? Is the list intended to be:

  1. Every opera with a Wikipedia article (and its composer), plus
  2. Every opera and/or composer lacking an article, that is judged to deserve one?

If so, then I take it that at some point, when every article has been created that ought to be, The Opera Corpus would simply be a total index of WikiProject Opera, sorted by composer. Is that correct? Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, though some composers may be notable, but their works not (see any encyclopedia). We are not listing composers without notable operas - they are covered elsewhere. The opera corpus would never become a 'total' index because we have all the singer articles etc. In reality, the list covers about one third of the Opera Project.--Kleinzach 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sound clips/Fulda Symphonic Orchestra

I've raised the issue of sound clips, especially those of the Fulda Symphonic Orchestra, on the Classical Music Project here. Some of the recordings are of opera overtures, e.g. Tristan and Don Giovanni. --Kleinzach 09:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Le_Trompeur_Trompé

About half done with making a start class/C-class article on this. It's going to lack criticism and such, but, eh, it'll contain all the basic information on the opera, plus a sound recording. That's not a bad start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Méhul upgrade?

Méhul I think deserves an upgrade from start- certainly to C....--Smerus (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We aren't in rating mode at the moment, though this is something being discussed. (It's possible we may not use C-class.) --Kleinzach 09:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've uprated it to B, but this is purely nominal and only theoretically makes it a hypothetical candidate for a real assessment! (Convolution intentional).--Kleinzach 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ambrosian Singers

Don’t you think Ambrosian Singers (or sometimes known as Ambrosian Chorus) should be under Opera project? They have recorded more than hundred recordings of full length opera (probably thousands) with many renowned opera singers. The article (Ambrosian Singers) makes the group sounds like a bunch of "Christmas carol singers" or pop/rock background singers without mentioning anything about their participations in opera. What a shame, these people are damn great opera chorus! - Jay (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

When I have the time, I will add their "opera" discography - Jay (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The article (heavily derived from the Bach Cantatas site) certainly needs improving, and an operatic discography would be good. How they'd fit into the Opera Project categories I'm not sure! --GuillaumeTell 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've put a Classical Music banner on this article because they are a large group and have been involved in many diffferent kinds of events, recordings etc. The Bach Cantatas page describes them "as a talent pool of some 700 professional singers available for work in concerts, operas, recording, and films and television". It may be misleading to think of them as a single group of artists. --Kleinzach 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added an "opera section + the discography". And now the article is heading more towards opera. I still feel they should be within opera project scope along with the Classical project. - Jay (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:CM doesn't double banner with other projects. Do you think most of their work is opera? If so we can change the banner to the opera one. --Kleinzach 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont know their other work outside opera but usually they are associated to opera/sacred music more than others. The list of their discography (full length opera) is too long compared to pop/rock. - Jay (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what about oratorios and concert stuff? --Kleinzach 09:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They've done a lot of symphonic choral music, oratorios, sacred music, etc. etc. not just opera. See for example:[6]. I think the Classical Music Project banner is more appropriate.Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This group is really more than just one thing. They do everything from opera to oratorio to concert work to recording for film scores. They can perform as a small chamber choir, a large oratorio chorus, an opera chorus, or whatever is needed. The group is really a collective of choral music professionals who are pulled together as needed. If the group only needs 24 voices then that's all they use. If they need 300 people than they have the people to do that. It's a really flexible ensemble with thumbs in all the choral music pies so to speak. Nrswanson (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mapleson Cylinders

Since I got on Wikipedia years ago, I was surprised not to find an article with this topic, although numerous articles mention the cylinders. So I have created an article - not too long, so the rest of you can fill in what you think is valuable. I've not put in the template of the WikiOpera Project, figuring someone else should do that. The "lucky" thing about this topic is that the most comprehensive source is online (see the external link), so it's just a problem of figuring out how not to plagierize. -- kosboot (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Opera

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few Start-class articles there, and I see that the Verdi and Mozart articles have cleanup issues. Nice to know, too, that Stevie Wonder is one of ours! --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Er - WAS one of ours - it was a Melonbot bannering that slipped through the House of Correction net and I've now debannered little Stevie. --GuillaumeTell 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What is Stevie Wonder got to do with Opera? They listed 6 articles under "opera" - Claude Debussy, Giuseppe_Verdi, Jacques Offenbach, Operetta, Stevie Wonder, Wolfgang Amadeus_Mozart. How about nominating Puccini and Wagner and few other noted opera articles + 1 or 2 opera houses and "Opera" article itself. - Jay (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record Stevie Wonder is categorized as a countertenor. I think that's how he got in. --Kleinzach 23:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This makes depressing reading. The selection is said to be automatic, so it would be understandable if the articles were all B-class or had high hit counts but they include a lot of start class and low hit scores (such as Operetta). It's difficult to cooperate with Wikipedia 0.7 if there are no clear selection criteria. --Kleinzach 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at the four articles selected for "classical music" at Classical Music -- Classical music, Baroque, Orchestra and ... and ... Elton John. I've been looking through the "0.7" selections in general and it's depressing. At the composers Wikiproject it's a bizarre selection too -- I can't quite understand how they're coming up with these. Does anyone know if this "release" is actually significant? Should we be worrying about this, or doing something about it? Antandrus (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The selection appears to have been done some time ago as the rating is out of date. For example The Marriage of Figaro was uprated to B on 12 August, but it's still listed as Start. --Kleinzach 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should ask them to remove Claude Debussy, Jacques Offenbach, Operetta, Stevie Wonder and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; and replace with other articles like Wagner, Puccini and Verdi; and probably French opera or Porgy and Bess. We have many good rated articles, I just wonder why "Claude Debussy, Jacques Offenbach, Operetta, Stevie Wonder"? Besides, Mozart is not within our project. - Jay (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What happened to opera project banner in Wagner and many other articles including Opera Music Conductors? - Jay (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't put Opera project banners on Wagner and G&S (descendant) project articles. Also almost all conductors come under the Classical Music Project. --Kleinzach 03:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 and Wikipedia 1.0 are Mickey Mouse projects. Anyone with any brains might have asked the relevant projects to choose which were the best articles to include. Instead, they used a bot. Is there any reason why we should be paying attention to these buffoons? --Folantin (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not we elect someone to represent project opera to tell them to remove whatever on the list that we don’t want and give them a new list? Yes, you are right, if they have brains, they would have asked! - Jay (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It also looks quite easy to help so articles into the next version. Singer articles can mention which opera they sing in, opera articles can mention who are famous interpretators of parts and the full cast of recordings and that will increase the hits that other articles receive. Opera and simila arts seem quite good for this. I suppose sports too bu mentioning lots of scoring.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The other music project selections look even less satisfactory than the opera ones. Maybe it would be better not to get involved? --Kleinzach 14:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This looks like a disaster. Plus, I don't see why we should do all the work when Wikipedia 0.7 have obviously put little effort or intelligence into their scheme. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The G&S project articles wqere weird as well. W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, Gilbert and Sullivan - Okay, I can see that. But then, ignoring our two FA Gilbert and Sullivan operas, it chose The Mikado - a weakish B-class - as its only selection. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing, by the way: I wouldn't necessarily get them to remove the ones on that list - given that they told the classical music project that *not one* composer within the Classical music project's bailiwick would be in the release, perhaps we should instead frame it as *additions* Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Composers come under the Composers Project, not WP:CM. Where does your information come from? --Kleinzach 09:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Mainly from glancing at the discussion on Classical music, to be honest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this whole Wikipedia 0.7 concept seem like a bad idea. The more I look at it the more it disturbs me. Wikipedia, as we all know, is not perfect and does have errors. We all find them and I am the first to admit that I personally have made some. These errors, however, are outweighed by the fact that the encyclopedia can be edited easily. However, by making a permanent collection of articles which can no longer be edited this benefit is erased. The resulting product is therefore likely to be unreliable and rather than being a useful tool for school children (which is what they are going to do with these DVDs!); it becomes a source of misinformation. In browsing through the articles selected, I found articles with original research tags, cleanup tags, etc. I am not sure where to raise my concerns but I think some better quality control is in order. I would rather scratch this whole project that provide an inferior education tool to school children. I guess we could just limmit articles to FA and GA status ones...Nrswanson (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just you. This whole enterprise is misconceived and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia. It might even be worth putting this up for deletion at WP:MFD or expressing general concerns on Jimbo Wales's talk page. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly would you put up for deletion? Wikipedia 0.7? --Kleinzach 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a MFD nom is warranted. At the very least that will result in some dialogue that will improve things.Nrswanson (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It could also make things worse. I've had some experience of 'discussions' with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, the Bot Owners and WP:BIO - essentially the same people. I wouldn't characterize them as constructive ones. --Kleinzach 00:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What would you suggest Kleinzach?Nrswanson (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a hard one. An MFD would generate an immense amount of drama, conflict, bad feeling, -- but possibly would initiate a useful reassessment of the project methodology and bring about change. (Ever the optimist.) My own interactions with WP:BIO have been disastrous: getting people to consider the possibility that those who actually know something about a topic are the best qualified to assess content in that area, for example, something which appears obvious to me, bounced off of them like a NERF ball off of depleted uranium. I dread going there again, and now wear garlic to ward them off (typically by self-assessing my own articles). In order to do a decent job of article selection, each project has to do a rigorous assessment of importance and quality within its area -- and then somehow we have to find, as a community, how to fill in the cracks between projects (for example I write a lot of articles on early music -- that strange polyphonic stuff, for example by Lassus -- which is completely unrepresented anywhere in 0.7 -- and there's got to be lots of things not covered by any Wikiprojects!) Personally I think a DVD release based only on GA, FA, and hit count, would be a laughingstock. Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIO is a 'meta' project. Accordingly, they claim every biographical article automatically comes under their guidelines (which of course include infoboxes). In April 2007, WP:BIO bannered all opera biographies on behalf of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. They said they needed to do it because we weren't doing assessments. They wanted to involve us in a WP:BIO Opera Workgroup (i.e. to do ratings), but we refused (see here). I am hoping that we can soon implement a sensible, practical, assessment system supported by everyone here - then work to get our articles removed from the WP:BIO database by deleting all their banners (and categories). --Kleinzach 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I support the move. It seems rediculous to me that a project could oversee that many articles. I honestly think that the bio project should be an umbrella project rather than banner spaming the encyclopedia and staking out territory in ways that seem counterproductive. In the mean time, what is to be done about this whole Wikipedia 0.7? I personally would like to see the whole concept be banned per my reasons above. Nrswanson (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
If we complain about the selection it's likely that we will be blamed for providing poor data - in particular for not using a importance scale. If you look at opera articles selected you will see that various stats that go towards the overall score. Articles with a score above 1250 get selected, (see also Magicpiano's comments on CM). --Kleinzach 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to put the whole of Wikipedia 0.7 up for MfD, not because I thought it would succeed, but just to bang a bit of sense into the participants. However, judging by the comments above it seems this would be a lost cause too. There's still the option of contacting User:Jimbo Wales on his talk page as he probably has the power to put the kibosh on it. Frankly, having looked at some of the other project areas covered, I'd say the mistakes with the opera selection are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no way of saving this disastrous scheme. Let it go ahead as it is, it will be thoroughly laughed at, and its proponents might finally wake up to the idiocy they have created. To this end, we should even consider keeping Stevie Wonder as one of our choices (plus, how about Florence Foster Jenkins, Robert Wagner - the composer of Lowenbrau - and Oprah Winfrey?). --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Monologue

We have an article on Monologue with a section on 'operatic monologue'. Is this a genuine opera term? Grove and Oxford have articles on Monodrama but not monologue. What do you think? Is a monologue essentially spoken rather than sung? --Kleinzach 00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... the description there (which is not the same as melodrama) is reasonable: Many songs do form the same function as a monologue in straight theatre. However, I would like to see evidence that that way of describing the song's function has some currency outside of the Wikipedia article. Also, why on earth are those specific examples used. Verdi's Falstaff is a fantastic work - certainly, any adaptation widely agreed to improve on the original Shakespeare has a lot going for it - but the specific claims made about it seem a little overblown. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm, since this the WikiProject Opera, I went to this article expecting to see an explanation of the musical form in which the soloist functions as a reciter rather than singer - but this article isn't that at all. The term has been traditionally "melodrama" but that is also a theatrical term. So where is the proper place for pieces like Strauss's Enoch Arden, or several numbers from incidental music by Beethoven where the characters recite while music plays in the background? -- kosboot (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bel canto

It would be helpful to have some OP members' input re this article, which really needs improvement. See the discussion here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Armands Strazds

I have nominated this article for deletion.Nrswanson (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

La bohème

O soave fanciulla
"O soave fanciulla" from Giacomo Puccini's La bohème, sung by Enrico Caruso and Nellie Melba in 1906.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Just did a restoration of this. I hope it meets with everyone's satisfaction? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good and clear, good job! Caruso's voice is loud and strong but, Melba's voice is a bit.. uhm.. funny, like a small girl's voice. Sounds too tiny, I dont know, probably the recording! Caballé sings better! - Jay (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Caruso was hogging the recording horn, causing her to be kept a bit farther away and thus sound less clear. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
About your suggestion to include audio in Opera portal; if we could get this kind of quality + the copyrights have expired or with permission, yes, I been thinking to add a new section for audio. I will probably begin with this one for October. What do you think? - Jay (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have access to quite a lot of early music. For instance, this archive of public-domain music classes 764 files under opera. Now, two warnings: First, we cannot use their restorations, because they licence them on a "Non-commercial" Creative Commons licence (They also provide unrestored versions, of course) Luckily, in a lot of cases I may well be able to do better - their restorations are pretty quick and dirty. Secondly, not every cylinder is going to be suitable for us: Some may be very degraded, others we may hate the performance. That said, browse through that site, listen to the restored versions - and I promise to restore any and all files you ask me to. I'm not going to guarantee anything with regards to speed, but I'm sure I can manage quite a bit more than one a month. And if you exhaust that archive, there's others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To give some idea what's possible, here's the unrestored version:

O soave fanciulla (unrestored)
Note how most of the annoying rhythmic clicking and popping that's present in some parts was removed or reduced, as well as some of the hiss (removing all of the hiss makes people sound a bit tinny and unnatural).
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Now, a couple others. Obviously, only The Mikado counts as opera (albeit a subsidiary WikiProject), but the point is to show what can be done, not to suggest sounds for the Opera Portal =) I've chosen some of the more extreme examples. Obviously, if I get a really good-quality recording, I can do a very good-quality restoration =)

Shine On, Harvest Moon (unrestored)
Pops are pretty easy to fix. Even those rather bad pops over the chorus.
Shine On, Harvest Moon (restored)


The Mikado (unrestored)
Really severe crackle is hard to remove completely, but can certainly be substantially reduced.
The Mikado (restored)


Irving Berlin - Follow the Crowd (unrestored)
Hiss is actually quite fixable.
Irving Berlin - Follow the Crowd (restored)
The tenor isn't very good, is he? Of course, the tenor is also the composer, Irving Berlin, which rather forgives a lot, no?
Irving Berlin - Oh How That German Could Love
However, really severe hiss can only be reduced so much before the singer ceases sounding human.


Irving Berlin - Oh How That German Could Love
This is about all I could do. Irving Berlin sings himself again, by the way.
Irving Berlin - That Mysterious Rag (restored)
Don't expect me to fix odd recording choices, like the very faint verse in the middle of this recording.
Florodora - In the shade of the palm (restored)
If you dislike Frank C. Stanley's performance of this, nothing I can do.

Anyway, I think that should give you some idea of what I can and cannot do, at least at my current skill level. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


As for what's at the site I linked - some very good stuff from Cavalleria rusticana, a nice recording from Massenet's Le Cid... You may have to dig a little bit, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of stuff for me. If in doubt (as some of the restorations are less than ideal) throw it my way and I'll tell you whether I think I can do anything with it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Choose what I should restore from Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg

Actually, let me make a request. I feel like doing Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg first, if for no other reason than we really do need a Featured Sound from Wagner. Here are six possible prize songs. I'll be working from the .wav files due to legal necessity (the restored mp3s are copyrighted and licenced under a non-commerical licence, but I think I MAY be able to do better than them anyway.

Give me a short list of singers from that list. I'm willing to do a couple versions, but I really would ask that you lot choose.</s<>

In the meantime, you're getting Massenet's Le Cid, as I like Spanish mythology, and it's a nice clean recording. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it would be a good idea to cross-post this at the Wagner Project Talk Page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
...God, I feel stupid now. Of course you're right. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Richard_Wagner#Sound_restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg

"Morgenlich leuchtend im rosigen Schein"
Leo Slezak's 1910 Edison Records recording of Walther's Prize Song from Richard Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've remixed this a bit - I think that I got the volume a bit off on my first try. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_68&oldid=1191658375"