Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 543: Line 543:
Well, OK, there isn't any such barnstar - but there should be. You folks are awesome. I came here needing help in an unfamiliar area, and within hours, FOUR of you answered my questions and improved my article. This is Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, OK, there isn't any such barnstar - but there should be. You folks are awesome. I came here needing help in an unfamiliar area, and within hours, FOUR of you answered my questions and improved my article. This is Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:...or opera fanaticism at its most typical. ;) [[User:Kosboot|kosboot]] ([[User talk:Kosboot|talk]]) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
:...or opera fanaticism at its most typical. ;) [[User:Kosboot|kosboot]] ([[User talk:Kosboot|talk]]) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
::The two are not mutually exclusive. 0;-D Quite the contrary. Wikipedia would collapse if it weren't for people who are passionate about things. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:17, 25 February 2015

A selection of January and February's new articles...

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals
Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals

A simple script will automatically replace the text on the front page with the appropriate month when the time comes. Here are the next three months:

[edit]

Composer of the Month for December 2024

Click Here to set up December's Composer of the Month!

[edit]

Opera of the Month for December 2024

Click Here to set up December's Opera of the Month!

Click here to show the January and February Opera and Composer of the Month preparation areas
[edit]

Composer of the Month for January 2025

Click Here to set up January's Composer of the Month!

[edit]

Opera of the Month for January 2025

Click Here to set up January's Opera of the Month!

[edit]

Composer of the Month for February 2025

Click Here to set up February's Composer of the Month!

[edit]

Opera of the Month for February 2025

Click Here to set up February's Opera of the Month!

Clean up project: Copyright violations
Copyright clean up project
This is an ongoing and vital project to clean up what is potentially a significant number of opera-related articles with copyright violations both from the Grove reference books and from other sources. Please see our copyvio cleanup page for details and how to help. Our purpose is to address a serious legal concern for Wikipedia and to maintain the integrity of articles under the scope of WikiProject Opera. All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist us.
Project alerts


Archives – Table of Contents
Archives – Alphabetical Index

Article creation and cleanup requests

Article requests

In a now archived discussion about List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, GuillaumeTell suggested that the following conductors/directors/designers really ought to appear in Wikipedia. I'm copying it here for editors who may be interested in creating these articles:

Per this discussion

Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (latest update 06:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Update: Dr. Blofeld has now created basic stubs for all of the above. I'll leave them up for the moment, as they need to be checked for bannering and possibly the addition of further references and/or external links with information for expanding the articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup requests
  • Per this discussion, the following transwikied articles from the Italian Wikipedia need considerable clean-up:
Stefano Gobatti • Luigi Bolis • Lando Bartolini • Gaetano Bardini • Basilio Basili • Lamberto Bergamini • Angelo Bendinelli • Armando Bini • Adolfo Bassi

Free subscriptions to databases

Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?

As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this here. But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the current article guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latest discussion (January 2014) is archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the German language Opera Project

Hello, just wanted to say Hi! from the German language Opera Project. We started in the beginning of 2011, a very recent effort compared to you. Likewise, our average articles on operas, composers etc. are quite behind the en:WP in terms of coverage and content. Which is a shame, considering the richness of opera life in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We have started by focussing on the widely read articles on popular operas, see this List, which gives page impressions in de:WP and en:WP and also global number of productions per year as a proxy for popularity. The rationale is this: given our low number of contributors, having 20 formerly poor articles on popular operas turned into solid works is worth more then 20 more articles on arcane subjects. How did you go about growing your project? PS: Maybe there could be some areas of cooperation, especially as regards access to and understanding of German language sources and literature. Let me know what you think. --Non mi tradir (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have introduced this timely proposal to the discussion here. --Smerus 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on this page on Karadar, but it will require adding those new links to the articles, and I'm not sure how long it will be before Karadar closes that loop hole. Anyhow, here's the list of operas so far where I've removed dead links and there is currently no other alternative. It's also possible to recover some of the karadar links via the Wayback machine, as was done at L'éclair, although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Does anyone know how to access Karadar these days? It appears to be a dead link - and I've tried to get into it via a couple of ways. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Viva-Verdi. It appears to have disappeared in all its guises–.com, .org. and .it. I have a feeling they ran into copyright problems with some of their stuff. It's not showing up on Google searches at all and see this wacky note. I have found this other site which has links to zillions of libretti. Hopefully, you'll find the one(s) you're looking for. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List

Le domino noir (only score found), Sigurd (opera), Ciro in Babilonia, Sigismondo, Ricciardo e Zoraide, Eduardo e Cristina, L'equivoco stravagante, I Capuleti e i Montecchi, Médée (Charpentier), Emilia di Liverpool, Francesca di Foix, Il signor Bruschino

Be on the lookout for these. They've been added to many opera and opera-related articles. This ad-filled Italian site simply downloads material found on archive.org, Project Gutenberg, WikiSource, or Commons and passes it off as their own. Links often go to recordings which are claimed to be licensed under creative commons but many are copyright infringements, in the US at least. Others go to mirrors of pages on Project Gutenberg. Example which I removed from Rigoletto today. You can get a list of the WP articles currently linking to this site here. – Voceditenore (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're still at it a year later. I just removed a bunch the other day. And three more in December 2014. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Voceditenore: Suggest you post details at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andy. I've reported it there today. I had reported it at WikiProject Spam back in 2013, but got no response—probably because the spammers are always changing their IP (although all geolocate to the same area of Italy). WikiProject Spam seems to deal with spamming editors rather than the stuff they spam. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to relive the "Opera/Article styles and formats" discussion??

User talk:Nikkimaria has been making changes to the Project's Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats for "Refs", "Notes" etc. I have reverted them, suggesting discussion here.

Now, I've tided the existing two sections which comes under the the "References" sections -i.e "Notes" and "Cited sources". I would hope that we do not need to re-visit the long discussions from 2011; we seems to have set up an acceptable layout which looks a lot better than a long series sub-sections.

However: at the same time, we have two slightly different layout formats, and - in my opinion- we ought to only have one which expresses the ultimate aim of reaching the GA+ status.

We may see further discussion here from the above-referenced user, so hope we stick to our guns and retain what we have. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly should not "stick to our guns and retain what we have". As I explained when making the change, the current recommendations create accessibility problems, and are contrary to the guidance of both MOS:ACCESS and MOS:LAYOUT. A concern about having many subsections can be addressed by limiting the TOC. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about having separate sections for "References" and "Sources"? That's the way I've always formatted my articles. Some opera editors decided to merge the two together using semicolons and it looks a total mess to me. I don't remember any consultation over the issue. --Folantin (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no substantial discussion when they were originally changed in July 2011. I pointed this out at the time at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats (a page with very few watchers). They were changed after a 2-day discussion by 2 members and one non-member with no discussion here on the Project's main talk page not even a notice that they had been proposed there. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 104#Changes to referencing guidelines. I was away for all of August, and they just ended up staying there, with many, many articles subsequently altered to "conform" to the new guideline mostly by the editors who had changed it. Nikkimaria is absolutely correct that the use of faux headings either via bolding or semi-colon is contrary to the accessibility guidelines. On the other hand, TOC limit has limited value for keeping multiple level 3 headings from bloating the TOC. It suppresses all level 3 headings and there many other level 3 headings in an article which are actually needed in the TOC. Like Folantin, I see nothing wrong with what we had before the guidelines were changed. That is, a level 2 section for the footnotes/inline citations titled "References" and another level 2 labeled "Sources" (necessary when using Shortened footnotes). I find these sub-divisions into Cited sources and Other sources confusing, messy, and quite contrary to MOS:LAYOUT. So yes, we do need to re-visit those 2011 discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility concerns are unnecessary with regard to bold markup for pseudo section headings. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Headings. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Michael, as MOS:ACCESS says quite the opposite, do you have any evidence to support that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely evidence that the use of a semicolon to bold a pseudo heading causes problems for those using screen readers, but that seems to have been rather conflated with the use of standard bold markup using ''' for pseudo headers ( a very widespread practice on Wikipedia). I'd like to see evidence that standard bold marking causes the same issues. I'll ask Graham87 who edits using a screen reader if it indeed does. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another relevant point is how these "guidelines" get changed and then appear to be writ in stone and stemming from widespread consensus. In my experience, they rarely are. For example, the injunction against using both the semicolon and the standard bold marking for pseudo headers, and in fact, an injunction against pseudo headers per se, was unilaterally added to MOS:ACCESS by one editor in June 2012 [1]. When they later had doubts and asked for comment, only one other editor replied, to the effect that a standard bolded topic heading can actually help dyslexic readers keep track of the text and would not affect those using screen readers. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#Headings: avoid pseudo-headings. Nevertheless, the guideline remained with only a minor change from "never" to "do not". Then 3 days ago, Nikkimaria changed the guideline at MOS:LAYOUT [2] to "match" the one at MOS:ACCESS after a brief discussion with only one other editor, thus perpetuating an assertion for which no clear, independent evidence has ever been provided. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Graham87 who has just responded at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout: "I'd prefer bolded headings, but it would be best if real headings could be used if possible.". I found this very helpful and it should inform our discussion here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So it seems there are two issues to discuss about this guideline. The first is the method used to create subsections (bold or real headings) - it would seem that real headings should be recommended, but bolded permitted. The second is what the subsections should be - Voceditenore's comment above suggests that we should not be requiring that either "Cited sources" or "Other sources" be subsections, while MOS:LAYOUT has what we are calling "Other sources" as a separate level-2 section titled "Further reading". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Further reading" is not the same as "Sources", cited or otherwise. "Further reading" is recommended additional reading material that was not directly used as a source in writing the wiki article [ETA: it can also include lengthy book sources which may have been used as citations but perhaps not exhaustively, and further delving into the book would be useful for the curious reader]. "Other sources" = sources used to create the wiki article, but not cited as specific footnotes. To recapitulate, "Other sources" is not the same as "Further reading". All sources used in writing the wiki article must be listed as sources. Softlavender (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources used must be listed, but as written the guideline presents "Other sources" as those "which, if consulted, would provide further information" - this seems to me to be closer to Further reading than a general references section. If that isn't what was intended, we should clarify that as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source means source. If it wasn't a source for the article, then it should not be labeled "source". "Further reading" consists of, or at the very least includes, items which were not used at all in writing the wiki article (and in fact have very little crossover with the article), and therefore a "Further reading" list should never be confused with a "source" list and never labeled as a "source" list. Softlavender (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a sample opera article with a maximum number of ref/notes/etc headers and subheaders, and also one or more sample(s) Featured Article(s) (non-opera) with a maximum number of such ref/notes/etc headers and subheaders, so we can compare them? I think this would be very instructive. Speaking in abstract is fine, but comparing actual articles with actual implementation of these various formats is much more instructive. Personally, I would like Opera articles to conform to the rest of Wikipedia, unless there is some excellent reason why they shouldn't. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Format samples and further discussion

Hi Softlavender. Good suggestion. Here are some Featured articles for comparison with various permutations on the use of pseudo headers, Level 2 headers, Level 3 headers, etc. As you can see the titles and contents of the headers (whatever their form) also vary considerably. I'm sure there are other permutations, but I stopped after 4 each.

FA opera articles

  • Carmen has one Level 2 section (== ==) titled References with 3 sub-divisions marked by bolded pseudo headers: Notes (parenthetical information), Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
  • Jules Massenet has one Level 2 section titled Notes, references and sources with 3 sub-divisions marked by level 3 headers (=== ===): Notes (parenthetical information), Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
  • Rinaldo (opera) is now similar to Carmen, but on 17 February 2011 (when it was made an FA), it had two undivided Level 2 sections: Notes and references (both parenthetical information and inline citations in shortened form) and Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Notes and references").
  • Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky has three undivided Level 2 sections: Notes (parenthetical information), References (inline citations), and Sources full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "References).

FA non-opera articles

  • Tichborne case has one Level 2 section (== ==) titled References with 3 sub-divisions marked by bolded pseudo headers: Notes (parenthetical information), Citations (inline citations in shortened form), Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing "Citations").
  • Elvis Presley has one Level 2 section titled References with 2 sub-divisions marked by level 3 headers (=== ===): Footnotes (inline citations in shortened form), Sources (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "Footnotes").
  • New Forest pony has two undivided Level 2 sections: References (containing both parenthetical information and inline citations in shortened form) and Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing in "References")
  • HMS Warrior (1860) has three undivided Level 2 sections: Notes (parenthetical information), References (inline citations in shortened form), Bibliography (full bibliographic form for citations appearing "References").

Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm quite happy with the format as we have it now, FA's not withstanding. As I recall in 2011, there was quite a bit of discussion until someone in the Project came up with the rather concise and simple layout which we now have. Viva-Verdi (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of using standard wiki formatting. In my mind there is not and never was any reason to go against the grain. The only time or place that I think it makes sense to use semicolons is in External Links, if they need to be subdivided, because they aren't part of the article and thus don't really need a presence in the TOC. (And conversely, it is good and important in my mind for things like "Further reading" "Bibliography" or "Sources" to show up in the TOC.) As Voceditenore mentions up above, there never was a discussion about this idiosyncratic change; there was just Kleinzach making a suggestion and two people agreeing. That's not sufficient cause in my mind for a major WikiProject with hundreds or thousands of articles to unilaterally change its style guide contrary to Wikipedia standards and all other WikiProjects. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender, Kleinzach didn't propose it. He merely agreed. However, that entire discussion took place between Viva-Verdi, Robert.Allen, and Kleinzach on Robert.Allen's talk page on 23 June and was then pasted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats on 28 June. Thirty-six hours later, following "Hearing no objections and with three editors in agreement plus actions already being taken, we shall assume that the structure below forms WikiProject Opera policy for opera-related articles." (hardly surprising since no one else on the project was even aware of the discussion), Viva-Verdi changed the guidelines. But note that the guidelines no longer use the problematic semi-colon (;) option for bolding pseudo headers, they only use the standard ''' markup for bolding, which is widely used on Wikipedia. I personally don't mind the guidelines as they stand now, although I strongly object to making the very non-standard distinction between Sources and Cited sources and remove it whenever I see it. Minimally, that distinction should be removed from the guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Carmen reached featured article status and uses the bolded subheadings in the References section. In fact, I seem to remember that this format has been used in many featured articles, which is how I originally got the idea of using it. I don't see that the MOS is the final word on this issue. I still favor using them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to combining all sources under one heading as simply "Sources" - and removing the distinction from the guidelines. Viva-Verdi (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Carmen article demonstrates that combining three kinds of references (notes, footnotes, sources) would be, IMO, impractical. Now that bolding by semicolon is strongly discouraged, I have the impression that bolded subdivisions become more widespread even outside classical music and opera articles. Are they following WP:WPO and WP:CM? Or is it the zeitgeist? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I think Viva-Verdi was referring to removing the current distinction in the guidelines between Cited sources and Other sources and simply having a Sources pseudo-heading. Viva, have I read your comment correctly? If so, I am strongly in favour of that. Michael, I suspect the use of pseudo-headings in references sections is the zeitgeist (possibly originating from a now-banned editor who used to do a lot of stuff with FAs) rather than stemming from our guidelines. There's even a template for it (Template:Fake heading) which has been around for about 4 years. There are about 50 articles that use it, but most use the ''' ''' markup instead. Voceditenore (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, I do mean that we remove "Cited sources" and "Other sources" and simply have all under "Sources". Viva-Verdi (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Based on the most recent comments, I have tweaked the guidelines to remove the distinction between Cited sources and Other sources. I've also added a link there to this discussion, mentioning that it contains examples of other referencing layouts used in opera-related FAs which may be more suitable depending on the circumstances. I don't think this aspect of formatting benefits from further micro-management. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almanacco template for the Amadeus Almanac

(Previous threads here and here. Redux: the Amadeus Almanac changed its website address, breaking hundreds of links from enWP. I wrote a template called Almanacco to provide a clean interface to this resource, and to protect us from the effects of any further changes. Now read on ...)

After a wikibreak of a couple of months, the template is 'finished': a kindly wizard at the Village Pump (Technical) has fixed the handling of accents, and I have added the 'linkonly' option suggested by Robert.Allen. I've added examples to the documentation and filled out the testcases for all permutations of parameters.

Executive summary: the template takes two search parameters: a fully specified date (dmy) and/or a search text (match). At least one of these must be present, but both are usually required to select a single entry in the Almanac. There are two optional display parameters: label controls the text of the actual link, and linkonly=t can be used to suppress the non-link pre- and post-fix texts describing the Amadeus Almanac.

There's a list of the broken links at User:Scarabocchio/tbd. I'll work my way through them as time permits. If you would like to help, remove a block of titles to your own space so others can see what is in progress. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this, Scarabocchio! And for your updates to WikiProject Opera/Online research. Much appreciated! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Soprano vs. Treble

The Article [3] is listed under the WikiProject-Opera heading, yet there are far more roles that boy trebles play than are seen in the frightfully few opera roles. Is it possible to unlink this page with the Opera project, or create (as was proposed several years ago) a second page for Trebles in general focused on everything else but the operatic roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoonboy (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what User:Dragoonboy means is that WikiProject Opera has a banner on the talk page of Boy soprano. That banner does not mean that WP Opera has full control of the article, it just means that WP Opera takes an interest in following the article (since it does contain some significant operatic content). Take a look at the talk page of Talk:Maria Callas (for example), which is bannered by 4 different projects. I've seen articles that have been bannered by 6 or more projects. So all it means that the project takes an interest in the content that is relevant to that particular project. kosboot (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A more extreme example: Talk:George H. W. Bush -- with 11 banners. kosboot (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dragoonboy. I've moved your comment down here. It doesn't really belong in the "Article creation and cleanup requests" section. Anyhow, at the moment Treble (voice) redirects to Boy soprano and that article already covers the various aspects of the treble voice in general. In my view there's no need for a separate article. Rather, the article could be retitled to "Treble (voice)" with a redirect from "Boy soprano", i.e. the reverse of the current situation. The lead sentence would be amended accordingly (as well as replacing the term "boy soprano" with "treble" where appropriate in the remainder of the article's text). I suggest you open a discussion about this at Talk:Boy soprano to see if there's a consensus for this change. Those sorts of issues should be worked out there not here, and I suspect there could be consensus for such a change.
As kosboot says, the WikiProject Opera banner is not a categorization. There's no reason to remove it. It has no effect on either the article's content nor on its actual categories. Like all project banners, it merely indicates that a particular project has an interest in the article and that its members may be able to provide useful input/resources for editing. All the classical voice types are within the scope of this project. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The weirdest talk page tagging I've come across is Talk:The Cunning Little Vixen, which is apparently of interest to WikiProject:Dogs. --Folantin (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Folantin, Lapák the dachshund is a key role and... dachshunds are very cute . In the interest of spreading opera, dachshunds, and trivia all over Wikipedia, I've now added him to Dachshund, List of fictional dogs and List of fictional canines. Onwards and upwards! Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs in opera? hmmmm ... a few operatic settings of Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog (Anissegos, Raskatov,..?), Russell Hepplewhite's Laika the Spacedog for ETO, Krása's Brundibár(?) ... ... Scarabocchio (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New template: Operabase

Having a (probably temporary) grasp of how templates are coded, now seems to be the best time to create more...

{{Operabase}} is a wrapper around performance searches by composer and/or work on Operabase. It takes two search parameters, called (inspiredly), work and composer and creates a suitably labelled link. From the documentation:

  • {{Operabase | work=Die tote Stadt }}
  • {{Operabase | composer=Alexander Raskatov }}
  • {{Operabase | work=Otello | composer=Rossini }}

will display as:

As in the {{Almanacco}} template, there are two parameters allowing you to override the two components of the link format: label=linktext, linkonly=t. See the documentation for more details. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just copying my comment from The Kiss: The Operabase link is not quite accurate as the first one is actually Béla Zerkovitz's Csókos asszony at the Budapest Operetta Theatre. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the template is linking to a page of search results, rather than a unique identifier, as used by comparable templates. AIUI, this is generally frowned upon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the cross-posting, Cg2p0B0u8m. I wish you had said that the listing for The Kiss was also returning The Kissing Lady (Csókos asszony) by Zerkovitz, though. You would have saved my eyebrows some exercise :-) I'll have a look if there's anything I can do about this, but adding |composer=Smetana to your link will work in the meantime: Template:Operabase and Template:Operabase. Scarabocchio (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New template: GroveMusic

The {{GroveMusic}} template searches the Grove Music Online site for a given text, or links to a specific article text. The site is available to subscribers only, so not all Wikipedia users will be able to access the results. This is, however, still a great improvement over a reference to a book.

There are two ways of using the {{GroveMusic}} template to access the Grove Music Online site: 

{{ GroveMusic | id=article-id }}

links directly to the article text. See the documentation for details. 

{{ GroveMusic | match=string }}

searches the site for the given search string.

Again, two parameters give you control over link format: label=linktext, linkonly=t. Example:

  • [[Roger Parker|Parker, Roger]] (1998), "{{GroveMusic|id=29191|match=Giuseppe Verdi|label=Verdi, Giuseppe|linkonly=t}}" in Stanley Sadie, (Ed.), ''The New Grove Dictionary of Opera'', Vol. Four. London: MacMillan Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-333-73432-7 ISBN 1-56159-228-5
  • Parker, Roger (1998), "Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. 2001. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.29191. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |label= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |linkonly= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |match= ignored (help)" in Stanley Sadie, (Ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Vol. Four. London: MacMillan Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-333-73432-7 ISBN 1-56159-228-5

Other options mentioned in the documentation might change as a result of feedback or further thought.

(Edited) Scarabocchio (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old templates: NewGrove1980, NewGrove2001

There were two templates created in 2006 to simplify the citation of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: {{NewGrove1980}} for the first edition in 1980, and {{NewGrove2001}} for the second edition in 2001. Between them, the two templates are used 110 times. They both take the article title and author, the volume number and the page range, eg:

The syntax is as follows: {{NewGrove2001|article|author|vol|pages}}
Example usage and its result:
{{NewGrove2001|Buxtehude, Dieterich|Snyder, Kerala J|iv|695–710}}
Snyder, Kerala J. "Buxtehude, Dieterich", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: Macmillan, 2001), iv, 695–710.

I'm thinking of updating the layout to something like this:

Snyder, Kerala J (2001), "Buxtehude, Dieterich", in Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. iv (2nd ed.), London: Macmillan, pp. 695–710

Is this overlinked? should the ISBN be included? is it worth revisiting these templates to add any additional features, eg the wikilinking of author(s)?   Scarabocchio (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been (mildly) bold and rewritten the template:
Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Scarabocchio (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted these templates to call {{Cite book}}. There are still issues around granularity (author first names and last names should be separate fields). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back

I am ready to come back if you take me. Happy New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda. Happy New Year to you too! I was flying off to deepest darkest Tuscany the day you wrote this and didn't see it 'til now. Anyhow, just go ahead and sign on, The OP doesn't have exit or entrance requirements . Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you (I didn't even wait). Lovely new baritone article on that Don Giovanni. From deepest La Gomera (with a slow line), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New templates

I will be creating a bunch of templates that are part of this project. They are way outside of my comfort zone, so I will let you guys know about them so that you can correct them if you wish.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this why you removed {{Rigoletto}} from the article although, originally, it took us to the Commons images? Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what your question is? Can you point me to an edit. I did not remove {{Rigoletto}}. I just restored it (reverting your removal).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(should this template be renamed "Jerusalem Delivered"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"should this template be renamed 'Jerusalem Delivered'?" Definitely (or Gerusalemme liberata). For instance, "Tancredi e Clorinda" does not contain the characters Rinaldo and Armida. --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to {{Jerusalem Delivered}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger:, I feel you are really pushing matters on {{Così fan tutte}} - none of the three operas you mention there has anything but the most remote or tangential connection with Così (Sharing a singer? - quoting a bit of a tune?.....) They are certainly not related to, or connected to, Così in any commonly understood sense. --Smerus (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)-[reply]

Hi Tony, I glanced at this one, and I have to strongly object to having a porn film in a navbox on a well-known Mozart opera that lots of people are going to click on. I have nothing against porn, but porn should not be in an opera navbox. The film The Mouth Agape does not belong either in my opinion; many films use snippets of opera here and there, and per the citation this does not sound anything but small and routine use. You are a great template creator, and I applaud your effort to and interest in creating opera navboxes, however I think you are casting far too wide a net in your zeal to fill them, or at least this one, out. It might be more productive to ask of the opera group which operas have related articles or spin-offs and could use a navbox but don't currently have one. Unfortunately, the ones that come to my mind right now already either have one or one on their source material. Since major operas are often based on well-known source material (however transformed), it's hard (for me at least) to come up with any ideas at present for operas which could fill out a navbox but don't already have one. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know the opera crowd is a very highbrow group, but I base my template creation on whether I can find at least 4 related links. If the lowbrow links exist I include them with the same priority as the highbrow links. I have used the same filters to generate templates for opera as I have in the past. Admittedly, I have never seen a link where the only two films were so bawdy. I am not sure that people interested in this topic would be uninterested in the operas that are linked, but these templates are work in progress that anyone can edit. I think all inclusions are of similar relevance to inclusions on the other templates that I have created. I am not sure how to indicate that the operas are not actually adaptations as might be expected. I do believe that they are related although not adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger:, thanks for this. It's not a question of being 'highbrow', but a question of whether the items in the template add value to anyone's understanding of the template header topic. The existence of a wikilink doesn't establish value. I am therefore taking your licence to edit by removing the three operas and the film The Mouth Agape from the Così template. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, there is a two directional aspect to each link in the template. Note that the template is transcluded on most of the links and there is the question of whether the inclusion of the questioned items in the template and its transclusion improves the understanding of the subjects of the links. I think you may have been a bit quick on the draw to completely remove the content that you did. It might have been better to rearrange the template so that the operas were moved into the related section. The complete removal is very inconsistent with the templating that I have done in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the primary topic (the original novel) should have a link within the template (in addition to being wikilinked in the header). If that constitutes a redundancy, I'd say leave the header unlinked and shorten it to "The Vampyre", and place the novel link in the body of the template. As it is, the reader seemingly has to search on his own or work to figure out the existence of the source novel, and that it is a novel as opposed to some other kind of work or production. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My confusion sprang from your posting this one in Wikiproject:Opera after having said you were creating opera templates and posting them here for review. Now that you've explained, the format of this one on the source-material makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested opera templates

I would like to see templates created for the following famous opera composer/librettist duos (along the lines of these musical-theatre composer/lyricist duo templates: Template:Kander and Ebb, Template:Lloyd Webber and Rice, Template:Rodgers and Hart, Template:Rodgers and Hammerstein).

Please do not add or include items not directly related to the duo or their operas -- i.e., please do not include items which happen to have or include the same or a similar title as an opera, or are only tangentially related, or articles which happen to have an opera mentioned in the article. Please only include works that are direct and complete official adaptations of the original work(s). Thank you.

If anyone wants to add other notable opera composer/librettist duos, who wrote at least three operas together (hopefully most of them notable), please do so. These are all that I can think of.

PS: Categories can also be created for these duos (trio in the case of Puccini/Illica/Giacosa). Along the lines of Category:Musicals by Rodgers and Hammerstein, Category:Musicals by Rodgers and Hart. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Lorenzo Da Ponte

Film
Arias
Also add
  • the discography article for each of the three operas

Operas by Richard Strauss and Hugo von Hofmannsthal

Also add
  • the discography article for each opera, where present

Operas by Giacomo Puccini with Luigi Illica and Giuseppe Giacosa

Film
Arias
Also add
  • discography article on each opera

Operas by Giuseppe Verdi and Francesco Maria Piave

Films
Arias
Also add
  • discography articles for each opera, where present

Operas by Giuseppe Verdi and Arrigo Boito

Related
Also add
  • discography articles for each opera, where present

Articles needing translation from German?

When I used to be active here (2007-2010?) there was a list of articles for opera-related articles where there was a German article but no corresponding English article. I may be looking in the wrong place (likely, given I've been on a 5-year Wikibreak!), but I can't see it any more? I'd like to help with some translation but need a to-do list to work from. Happy to take requests directly (here or on my talk page). Cricketgirl (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cricketgirl. Thanks so much! I don't remember seeing a list like that, but it may have been before my time here. I did a cursory search through the project's talk archives and couldn't find anything either (although it may be there somewhere). Anyhow, to get you started, I've listed 4 red links from The opera corpus which have German WP articles:
There are probably more, but I only checked up to and including the composers beginning with "D". Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner/List of article-worthy Wagner singers has a bunch of red links which may or may not have German WP articles. I'll leave this section permanently open so other members can add to it when they spot something they'd like translated. All the best and welcome back! Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've started on the first one and will copy it all in from my sandbox when it's finished. Others - please feel free to add to this list! Cricketgirl (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cricketgirl, you might some time like to take a look at de:Semiramide riconosciuta which has masses of detail not in the English article, which anyway treats the topic as if it were only a matter of Porpora's setting. And Gluck's is confusingly listed in English WP under La Semiramide riconosciuta. And there's nothing in English WP of all the other settings. So there's a whole lot of sorting out to do, for which I think translation of the German article might be a necessary starting point. Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the German article is massive! Will take a look soon. Cricketgirl (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that, that's why I've shied away from it. :-} --Smerus (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose there's a way to automatically generate such a list, is there? (Calling Wikidata...) kosboot (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a way of doing it as there is a general list of pages needing translation (can't find the link now, stupidly removed it from my desk), but it wasn't project specific. Cricketgirl (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die heilige Ente

I've stubbed this out, but can't find anywhere a summary of the plot - can anyone help? --Smerus (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smerus! This page at Universal Edition seems to have one—in German. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hurrah! many thanks - this has been one way of passing a boring afternoon in Baku.--Smerus (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operas by world premiere location

This category seems to be a bit of a mess. I would think that the title of each sub-category in this cat ought to be Category:Operas premiered at Theatrename, (or where the theatre name is not known, Category:Operas premiered in Townname). Instead they are of the format Category:Theatrename world premieres. This means of course that other types of premieres given at these premises (e.g. ballets or dramas for all I know) can't properly be categorised - and there is the absurdity of a sub-category of Category:Paris Opera world premieres being Category: Ballets premiered at the Paris Opera Ballet‎, i.e. the ballet premieres are listed in the opera premieres category tree. I haven't a clue how to begin to sort this out‎ - how do we resolve it all?--Smerus (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not incredibly fussed about the ballets category being accessible through the opera category tree. It can also be made accessible through the ballets category tree, if it isn't already. I don't agree that "Operas premiered in Townname" is necessary, as that's rarely a useful subject for categorization, while being able to see a category of operas premiered at X theatre is actually pretty significant for the theatre. But I wouldn't have an issue with renaming to "Operas premiered at Theatrename". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've recategorised the Paris ballets. But what about these further problems with "Operas premiered at Theatrename"? 1) "Theatrename" by itself may not mean much to the uninitiated. Members of WP:OPERA may (?) know that 'La Monnaie' is in Brussels, 'Teatro San Carlo' is in Naples, 'Burgtheater' is in Vienna - not so easy for others. 2) "Theatrename" in the present categories may not always conform to WP articles - I haven't checked them all, but e.g. the WP article 'Covent Garden' (correctly) deals with the area of London of that name. The opera house article is Royal Opera House. 3) But then again "Theatrename" may be misleading. Most operas listed presently as having 'Covent Garden world premieres' had premieres at the Covent Garden Theatre, which may have been the theatre building preceding the present Royal Opera House, or the present building when it was still called 'Covent Garden Theatre'‎. Others may have had their premieres in the present building when it was named 'Royal Opera House' after 1946. Although Covent Garden Theatre segues to Royal Opera House, shouldn't we separate operas premiered there according to the name of the theatre at the time of the premiere?--Smerus (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now proposed changes to the format Category:Opera world premieres at Theatrename.--Smerus (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with voice type articles and a potential solution

I'm starting a discussion here because it applies to multiple articles—Tenor, Soprano, Contralto, Baritone, Bass-baritone, etc. These are not intended to be "Lists of X" articles. By including the names of singers we encounter at least three major problems:

  1. The lists are potentially enormous and unwieldy, and anything approaching limiting them to "Notable" or "Prominent" is pointless. Everyone thinks "their" singer is notable and prominent, right up there with Caruso, Callas, Chaliapin, etc.
  2. The sub-classification of singers is very problematic, approaching the ridiculous. Most singers cannot be shoe-horned this way, and indeed have fit into different classifications depending on the stages of their careers or concurrently sing roles in multiple sub-classifications. Domingo is a classic example of this.
  3. We get the inevitable attempts to add pop singers to the articles, despite me having created List of tenors in non-classical music, List of baritones in non-classical music, etc. to siphon them off. I've just removed this bizarre list from Bass-baritone.

I propose taking Bass as a model. It lists only examples of roles written for that voice type (and its sub-classifications). We remove all names of singers from the rest of these articles. At most we could list the singer who created each of those roles, but even that probably isn't necessary. What do other members think? Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1. That's exactly what we did with the Fach article, since the voice types are only associated with roles, not people. kosboot (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both of you on the above. Some of the other articles are certainly unwieldy, especially the baritone one! Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree.--Smerus (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.4meter4 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
ps: add Alto, no singers there, but some more explanation would be nice, vs. contralto, use in church and concert music, sung by boys, men and women --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dissent It's one thing to say Fach categorizes roles; any given singer can do more than one. I can't see an article starting "Chaliapin was a singer of bass, baritone and occasionally tenor roles", however, and imo voice type articles benefit from well chosen examples of singers. The role lists can also get a bit crufty. Sparafucil (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operas of the month

I've just gone across to the German version for each of these and pulled the premiere date and theatre in each case over to the lead section of the English article. There wasn't an exact date for Idomeneo but I did all the others. Loath to take the box off the front page! but wanted to say I've done it in case the Grand Maestro of this Wikiproject (should there be such a person) wanted to update the box on the project page? As ever, humbly a servant of WP:OPERA, Cricketgirl (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cricketgirl. Thanks so much for that! I've marked them all as "done". Feel free to do that in future months if it arises. The "X of the Month" boxes are transcluded on the main project page and are separately editable. (See the edit · history · watch · refresh links at the top of each box.) It's better to mark each item as done rather than remove it from the box. Otherwise we don't have a clear record of what each XoM was. The archive of past ones dating back to 2006 is here. I ended up as the "Grand Maestra" of the XoM boxes sort of by default, but anyone can suggest future ones. You'll find the forms for the next three months at the top of this talk page just of above the Table of Contents in the band marked Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Voceditenore - sorry for the daft questions / non-boldness; am learning! --Cricketgirl (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquina García Sitchez

Seduced by the entry at the Bibliothèque nationale de France, I've created a stub for the wife of Manuel García senior, the mother of Manuel Garcia the younger, Maria Malibran, and Pauline Viardot as Joaquina Garcia. I haven't added any redirects or other furniture as I am struck by doubts on the best name for the article. Perhaps it should be her stage name, Joaquina Sitchez? Scarabocchio (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scarabocchio. A quick look at a Google book search and at Spanish websites suggests that she is most commonly known/written about as Joaquina Sitchez. If you keep it as Joaquine Garcia and make Joaquina Sitchez a redirect, then you need the accent mark on the "i" in "Garcia", i.e. move Joaquina Garcia to Joaquina García. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Voceditenore ... I think that you are right that it should be moved to Sitchez (I shall ignore the esWP suggestion of yet another variant: Joaquina Briones!). Scarabocchio (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is some interesting biographical information on the family in Songs and Duets of Garcia, Malibran and Viardot (ed. Patricia Adkins Chiti), which says García never divorced his first wife, Manuela Morales Aguirre. Joaquina Sitchez, therefore, would never have been Joaquina García in the legal sense at all! Scarabocchio (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 1

Hi! Thank you for subscribing to the WikiProject X Newsletter. For our first issue...

Has WikiProject X changed the world yet? No.

We opened up shop last month and announced our existence to the world. Our first phase is the "research" phase, consisting mostly of reading and listening. We set up our landing page and started collecting stories. So far, 28 stories have been shared about WikiProjects, describing a variety of experiences across numerous WikiProjects. A recurring story involves a WikiProject that starts off strong but has trouble continuing to stay active. Most people describe using WikiProjects as a way to get feedback from other editors. Some quotes:

  • "Working on requested articles, utilising the reliable sources section, and having an active WikiProject to ask questions in really helped me learn how to edit Wikipedia and looking back I don't know how long I would have stayed editing without that project." – Sam Walton on WikiProject Video Games
  • "I believe that the main problem of the Wikiprojects is that they are complicated to use. There should be a a much simpler way to check what do do, what needs to be improved etc." – Tetra quark
  • "In the late 2000s, WikiProject Film tried to emulate WP:MILHIST in having coordinators and elections. Unfortunately, this was not sustainable and ultimately fell apart." – Erik

Of course, these are just anecdotes. While they demonstrate what is possible, they do not necessarily explain what is typical. We will be using this information in conjunction with a quantitative analysis of WikiProjects, as documented on Meta. Particularly, we are interested in the measurement of WikiProject activity as it relates to overall editing in that WikiProject's subject area.

We also have 50 people and projects signed up for pilot testing, which is an excellent start! (An important caveat: one person volunteering a WikiProject does not mean the WikiProject as a whole is interested; just that there is at least one person, which is a start.)

While carrying out our research, we are documenting the problems with WikiProjects and our ideas for making WikiProjects better. Some ideas include better integration of existing tools into WikiProjects, recommendations of WikiProjects for people to join, and improved coordination with Articles for Creation. These are just ideas that may or may not make it to the design phase; we will see. We are also working with WikiProject Council to improve the directory of WikiProjects, with the goal of a reliable, self-updating WikiProject directory. Stay tuned! If you have any ideas, you are welcome to leave a note on our talk page.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing!

– Harej 17:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Project members will be particularly interested in this contribution to the ProjectX talkpage. The implication of some editors clearly being that WPOpera is a 'bad project'. The editor making the initial comment may be known to some WPOpera members. I was not aware from Harej's comments, which seem to me to be implicitly useful and sound, that there was some potential of ProjectX turning into a moral crusade.--Smerus (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a project member (again) and was welcomed back: "The OP doesn't have exit or entrance requirements", - what gives you the idea that Opera is meant at all, and you even say "clearly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gerda, if you look at the thread (which I see is now closed) you will see that it was not I who suggested that the comments turned on projects and infoboxes, but that it was User:Choess and User:Snow Rise who 'gave me [and other readers of the thread] the idea'. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Harej closed that thread as unproductive and rightly so. It was quite contrary to the goals of WikiProject X. Why are we rehashing it here? Enuf said... Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tosca and the Peacock

See the discussion at Talk:Tosca#Peacock words. Members' views could be useful there. Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kullervo synopsis

A reviewer of Kullervo (Sallinen) is concerned about to close similarity of the synopsis to the source. Any volunteer for a rewrite? I (DYK nominator) don't have time right now, and the author didn't react in a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that there were copyright problems with the synopsis I had put in that article, using New Grove Opera 1997 plus the two Opera reviews referenced, but also looking at the Frankfurt Opera page which looked like a reasonably reliable source. I should say that it is often very difficult to rephrase a synopsis; if you change the words round in source A they can easily become identical to source B, and if you merge A and B you find that you have ended up too close to source C. Thank you nonetheless for the improvement (and completion) of the synopsis.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Male sopranos"

I have started a discussion at Talk:Soprano#"Male sopranos" and welcome others thoughts and expertise. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a new opera article

Hello! I am writing my first opera article - about Menotti's La Loca. I think I have it mostly in shape but I have a couple of questions, about that table where we list the cast of the premiere. The article is at User:MelanieN/La Loca.

  • Should I leave as redlinks the cast members who do not have Wikipedia articles, or should I unlink them?
  • I was unable to find the vocal parts for the various characters, although I have the names of the performers. This is kind of an obscure opera and I was not able to find the information. Should I just leave the vocal parts blank, or does someone here at WikiProject Opera have access to sources that I do not?

Any other suggestions, corrections, or advice welcome. Thanks for any help! --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looks interesting. I would leave as red links those singers for whom you expect an article to be written, - not the ladies in waiting I would think. I would try to move details from the lead to a paragraph about composition history, and the line about three parts sung by one baritone from the synopsis. Happy singing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was fast! Thank you for the vocal parts, User:Kosboot - I certainly came to the right place! And thanks for the advice, Gerda, I'll do that. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - still need a vocal part for Catalina. --MelanieN (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at part of the program which lacked the cast list, but had the singers's credits. So I based it on that. But the woman who played Catalina was not listed. kosboot (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that she once sang Papagena,[4] so do you think I could safely list her as a soprano? --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's safe enough. kosboot (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Barnstar

Well, OK, there isn't any such barnstar - but there should be. You folks are awesome. I came here needing help in an unfamiliar area, and within hours, FOUR of you answered my questions and improved my article. This is Wikipedia at its best. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...or opera fanaticism at its most typical. ;) kosboot (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two are not mutually exclusive. 0;-D Quite the contrary. Wikipedia would collapse if it weren't for people who are passionate about things. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera&oldid=648804612"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy