Talk:History of opera
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
,_logo.png){kind=logo}
 | This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Historia de la ópera from the Spanish Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
Article name
[edit]I haven't read this (huge) article yet, but the name ought to be History of opera, with a lower case 'o'. The disambiguation page currently under that name should be moved back to History of opera (disambiguation); this will require administrative assistance (WP:RM). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like this may have been done incorrectly. The wikidata item for the disambiguation page is now pointing to this article, and the disambiguation page itself seems to have been deleted and replaced with a redirect to this page. If the disambiguation page was useful, it should be undeleted and restored to the location you mentioned, and the wikidata item needs to be updated to point to it instead. This will again require admin assistance. Bensci54 (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Maybe the moving administrator, User:Renata3, can take care of this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Very long
[edit]This article is incredibly long, and much of the information is repeated from the main sections of other articles (French opera, Spanish opera, etc.). It's definitely worth keeping around as an all-encompassing history, but I think it could be scrubbed of a lot of the extra details and just speak to the history on the whole. Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is a paid-for machine translation from the Spanish, as part of this project, which has caused a lot of content-forking issues. I agree it is worth keeping, but is waaaaay too long, and should be split by period. Perhaps at 1800 and 1900, or at other points. Thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its not long and is well within the boundary of large articles that has have complex subjects and are summary articles within a history subject. It provides an excellent history of opera that would have been unlikely to be written by anybody else in the past 15 years, and hasn't been. It is one of most perfectly written articles I've read on Wikipedia. Your going to lose vital information, as far as I can none of you are experts on opera, and to say its got to be "scrubbed" of what. I have long history of classical music from my parents mostly and having read it from end to end its pretty accurate already. I'm really worried your going to horse it. Repeated content is normal practice on wp. scope_creepTalk 03:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is 348,321 raw bytes long, which per WP:TOOLONG is waaaay too long. Perhaps someone could do the "readable prose size". Try reading it on a mobile, which is what most of our users do! I don't write on it that much, except for the very eartly period, but I do know a lot about opera - your high praise for this suggests perhaps rather more than you. Repeated content on this epic scale is not "normal practice on wp", and is strongly discouraged. If you add Origins of opera and our various national/type articles like French opera together, this is pretty much what you get. But I think there is a case for a general by-period account, which can be achieved by breaking this up along the lines suggested above. I agree that (unliike most articles from this project) the English and content quality are generally ok, but all the references are Spanish which is a pity. Unlike Lindsey40186 above, I would rather split it than trim it, although eg the three screensful of waffly introduction (which seems compulsory on large Spanish articles) could go. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- It was strong discouraged back in the day due to technology limitations, but the WP:TOOLONG essay is about 10 years out of date. The article hasn't been updated since 2013. Things have moved on. The latest [Ookla Survery] shows than more than 150 of 180 countries have more than 10Mbit+ houshold broadband connections, 170 have at least 5Mbits+ broadband, and more than 130 countries have 4Mbit+ connectio on their mobiles, so who exactly is it too long for. The mantra of "lets shorten the article" is really past sell-by date. Spanish references are perfectly valid per consensus. I have a feeling your going to ruin it. The Origins of opera articele is a complete disaster. Its not even referenced properly and is too short to explain exactly what when on, in any kind of detail. They are still under development. The French opera article is better, but still half-sourced. The quality in both of them are not there. I have a feeling that I will have to push back at every level to slow you down so its not destroyed and becomes a genuine loss to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The move to mobile has actually strengthened the need for reasonable length. WP:TOOLONG is policy not an "essay", and I bet if it were seriously revised now it would become more stringent, not less. I don't especiallly want to change much, just break it into more usable sections. Let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- It was strong discouraged back in the day due to technology limitations, but the WP:TOOLONG essay is about 10 years out of date. The article hasn't been updated since 2013. Things have moved on. The latest [Ookla Survery] shows than more than 150 of 180 countries have more than 10Mbit+ houshold broadband connections, 170 have at least 5Mbits+ broadband, and more than 130 countries have 4Mbit+ connectio on their mobiles, so who exactly is it too long for. The mantra of "lets shorten the article" is really past sell-by date. Spanish references are perfectly valid per consensus. I have a feeling your going to ruin it. The Origins of opera articele is a complete disaster. Its not even referenced properly and is too short to explain exactly what when on, in any kind of detail. They are still under development. The French opera article is better, but still half-sourced. The quality in both of them are not there. I have a feeling that I will have to push back at every level to slow you down so its not destroyed and becomes a genuine loss to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 19:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is 348,321 raw bytes long, which per WP:TOOLONG is waaaay too long. Perhaps someone could do the "readable prose size". Try reading it on a mobile, which is what most of our users do! I don't write on it that much, except for the very eartly period, but I do know a lot about opera - your high praise for this suggests perhaps rather more than you. Repeated content on this epic scale is not "normal practice on wp", and is strongly discouraged. If you add Origins of opera and our various national/type articles like French opera together, this is pretty much what you get. But I think there is a case for a general by-period account, which can be achieved by breaking this up along the lines suggested above. I agree that (unliike most articles from this project) the English and content quality are generally ok, but all the references are Spanish which is a pity. Unlike Lindsey40186 above, I would rather split it than trim it, although eg the three screensful of waffly introduction (which seems compulsory on large Spanish articles) could go. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its not long and is well within the boundary of large articles that has have complex subjects and are summary articles within a history subject. It provides an excellent history of opera that would have been unlikely to be written by anybody else in the past 15 years, and hasn't been. It is one of most perfectly written articles I've read on Wikipedia. Your going to lose vital information, as far as I can none of you are experts on opera, and to say its got to be "scrubbed" of what. I have long history of classical music from my parents mostly and having read it from end to end its pretty accurate already. I'm really worried your going to horse it. Repeated content is normal practice on wp. scope_creepTalk 03:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)