Talk:Le grand mogol

Deleting references

@Tim riley It was rather WP:POINTY of you to delete an encyclopedia that has in-depth coverage of this opera across multiple pages just because you have an aversion to citations in the lead. Our policies on lead citations are clear that they are not required nor prohibited (see WP:MOSLEADCITE). Further there is content in the lead paragraph that is not in the body, such as classifying this work as an opera bouffe so a citation was warranted because our policies are clear that content found only in the lead must have a citation. Regardless, deleting high quality sources at any time is a bad idea (as they can be used elsewhere to further improve the article), and the responsible thing to do would have been to move the source and the content it was verifying into the body if you want to maintain a cite free lead. You are a better editor than this.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding cites in leads is nothing to do with my personal preferences: see WP:LEAD. That particular citation was, I don't doubt, impeccably sourced, but superfluous as the details of the plot are already cited in the main text. Had they not been I should certainly have gratefully used your citation at the relevant point. Discussions like this are better on an article talk page – where they can be seen by all interested editors rather than the few who look at one's talk page – where your helpful point that the categorisation of the work is not in the main text can be pursued. There should be nothing in a lead that isn't in the main text. In the case of light French operas I am far from confident of distinguishing with any precision between opéra bouffe, opéra bouffon, opéra comique and opérette, and I am not alone, as I see Gänzl calls Audran's piece an opéra-bouffe, but the splendid Théâtre musical opérette site calls it an opérette and one French paper called it an "opérette safranée", whatever that means. The published score is with Gänzl, as are Stoullig and Noël, and Le Figaro in 1884, so I think that's a working majority, but it shows how fluid these French terms are. Tim riley talk 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now remedied the absence of the category in the main text, and I've added the lang|fr templates throughout. They weren't required when I wrote the article but I foresee a helluva lot of work in the future to update the templates in other articles on French operas and plays. Help with any of these will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Respectfully please keep the encyclopedia on the page somewhere. All of the references you used are either offline or in French. It's beneficial to the reader to have a source like Ganzl's English language encyclopedia entry which is freely available through the internet archive to the general public accessible to readers of this article. I really don't understand the obstinance towards keeping this source on the page.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to Gänzl. Remiss of me to neglect the Internet Archive link because using the print edition of the G&L book (also linked) on my shelves. Tim riley talk 19:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]