Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archives Table of Contents

Titles

Original language opera titles

I noticed that DrG just changed the first paragraph of the La bohème article to list the title as La bohème. [1] We need to have a discussion over which is the correct form to use for Italian and French operas; having both words capitalized as often seen in America (and other English speaking countries, I would imagine) or just the first word capitalized. A quick glance at Category:Italian-language operas shows that we have both occurring Il rè pastore, Il tabarro, La forza del destino but La Bohème, Le Donne Curiose, Il Trovatore. I don't have an opinion on this yet, but I think we should set one standard. --BaronLarf 18:31, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

If the title of the opera is given in its original language, I use the capitalization of the original langauge and the original title capitalization. Since wikipedia is case-sensitive with its entries (this drives me crazy, btw), I think we have no choice, but to use the correct capitalization. I am up-dating the titles as I go along, creating redirects from the older titles. --DrG 19:55, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. Since BaronL posted his note above, it appears that DrG moved La Bohème moved to La bohème at 21:40 UTC. Although I realize that in Italian usually only the first word is customarily capitalized, I have seen it so often otherwise that it looks more natural. Personally I would prefer that the articles were not summarily renamed, given all the links, and that capitalization changes are applied within the articles themselves. As aside, I trust that DrG will soon discover that searching within Wikipedia is case-insensitive and that that case-sensitivy in names has its virtues. -- Viajero | Talk 22:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viajero that we should form consensus before moving on here; while being bold has its place, we need to be careful not to step on toes and create problems that require administrative involvement to clear up (moving of pages with redirects that already exist, for example). The Met uses multiple capitals in Italian titles [2]; a search of "La bohème" (case insensitive) on Google reveals only 4 of the top 50 sites use "La bohème", while the rest use "La Bohème". I'm just not seeing an overwhelming reason to changing all the Italian opera titles.

DrG also urgently needs to realize the consequences of his renames. At the present, the WikiMedia software does not support double redirects, hence he has broken a number of links from La Boheme, as can be seen here: [3]. These need to be fixed ASAP. -- Viajero | Talk 22:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've also noticed problems on the Le Villi page and the Il Tabarro page. DrG — please use the proper methods for moving pages using the "move" tab. You cannot just delete the entire contents of a page and create a redirect to a new article that you paste the information into. This erases the page's history, which it is essential to keep (for posterity and for legal reasons that I really don't fully understand). If you want to move but can't because a redirect already exists, use the procedures on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Better yet, let's discuss it here. I think I erred here; I apologize. It appears that the pages were properly moved, although now it's not possible to move them back without an administrator. --BaronLarf 22:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, given the large number of articles which refer to it as such, I have moved this article back to La Bohème. DrG: please discuss further article renames before undertaking them. -- Viajero | Talk 22:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked Le Villi and Il Tabarro, and given DrG created them himself only a day or two ago, there are no history or redirect issues of note. That being said, renaming by copy & paste is not a good idea. As BaronLarf said above, you should use the move function. Please discuss further renames. Thanks. -- Viajero | Talk 23:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have been using the proper move page procedures, following them as best as I understand them. I didn't know I had to get permission to move a page. That was never explained to me or documented. This all is due to the fact that we do not have a proper naming guideline. I have been working of Verdi operas and have found three pages, all for the same opera. The only diference being the capitalization. If correct capitalization is not the standard, please tell me what is. --DrG 03:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is just that you continue to make changes even after we're trying to have a debate about proper naming conventions. You've just finished making around 50 changes articles making it La bohème instead of La Bohème. This isn't a good way of talking things through. Cheers. --BaronLarf 04:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am confused??? What do you want? I am new to this, so I don't know what is expected. You complain that double-redirection is a problem, and you complain when I try to fix it. Sometimes I get so excited, that I don't check all the message pages before proceding. I'm sorry for that. I have been working a lot on Verdi operas. Some links have not been created. Some have. Some have correct capitalization, some incorect. Some even have incorrect titles. Consider Verdi's "Lombardi" I have seen "I lomardi", "I Lombardi" and "Lombardi". The correct title is "I Lombardi alla prima crociata" Variations on this include "I Lombardi alla Prima Crociata", "I lombardi alla prima crociata", "Lombardi alla Prima Crociata", and "Lombardi alla prima crociata". And there are more, I'm sure. I don't see how perpetuating an incorrect title helps us or our readers. I say we bite the bullet now and use the proper titles. It is difficult to defend any other position. I don't want to stop working while this is debated, so please help me. If correct capitalization is not our policy, tell me what is. I will create all my new pages to conform to it. --DrG 05:03, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

A related issue. The policy as I now understand it is to use accent marks: Bohème, not Boheme. Currently there is a page called Aida. If accents are used, it should be Aïda. Should this page be moved? --DrG 06:57, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

I would like to write about Verdi's sicilian vespers. No stub now exists. Considering language, capitalization, and accent marks, what would be a good title? I would pick "Les vêpres siciliennes" (French, lower case, with accents marks). Some might prefer prefer the Italian title "I vespri siciliani". Some might like English "The Sicilian Vespers". I have also seen "Les Vêpres Siciliennes" and "Les vepres siciliennes". Any guidance would be appreciated. --DrG 06:57, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

DrG, there is no question that we want to use "correct" capitalization; the issue is determing what that is. The conventions which are used in other languages may not necessarily apply to English. "La bohème" may be correct in Italian, but I have an English-language book here, the Penguin Anthology of Opera, in which it is written "La Bohème". And "Aida" without the diaresis. On the other hand, it has "Il tabarro". I find "La bohème" debatable, and it would have been far better to have a discussion about it before you renamed it in fifty-plus articles.

We have to arrive at a concensus about these things, otherwise Wikipedia would descend into pure chaos. That often takes time, as you can see from the many long dicussions which take place over stylistic issues such as layout, naming conventions, spelling, typography titles, etc, before they eventually get codified in the manual of style. You wrote above: I don't want to stop working while this is debated, so please help me. You must understand that this attitude is incompatible with the way things work here; we are not ~2,000 individual editors working in parallel, this is a collaborative effort, and concensus-building is very time-consuming. If something hasn't been agreed upon yet, work on something else; there is plenty to do here. It is an especially bad idea to go on a rename binge while these things aren't settled.

"I Lombardi alla prima crociata" is the full name, but it is often referred to simply as "I Lombardi", hence it would be appropriate to use that for the article name (shorter is better) and indicate the full name at the top of the page (ie, I Lombardi alla prima crociata is an Italian opera by...). This is quite common on Wikipedia.

If the English name is common, use that, otherwise Les vêpres siciliennes would be fine, with redirects from the unaccented name Les vepres siciliennes (facilitates searching) and the Italian name, I vespri siciliani.

-- Viajero | Talk 10:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you for some valuable help. I didn't mean to binge. I thought from the earlier comments that you were upset because I did'nt change the pages -- so I started to change them. Now I know that was the wrong thing to do also.

So in an effort to build concensus, what is "correct" capitalization? I was using New Grove as a reference. Would the Penguin Anthology be a better choice? We could also use Google and take the most popular capitalization. This would help people find the entries. --DrG 13:45, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Thanks to BaronLarf's note over at Lăbomê talk, ~~I no longer feel that I have missed out on the collective p!issing upon of DrG from a great height~~ , in terms of the actual issue at hand, I side with the capitalisation crowd due to the convention in English and this being the English Wikipedia. As for the accurate or appropriate use of diacritical marks in general, DrG, ommision or incorrect use of an accent is indeed a problematic wider issue. 203.198.237.30 13:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

DrG, no problem. Virtually everything here can be undone. Now, ideally, through discussion, using Google, consulting Grove, other reference works, we can arrive at one single guideline which can apply to all opera names. In practice, however, it might not be so easy, and some cases might have to be decided at an ad hoc basis, such as with La Bohème.

For example, the Penguin anthology seems consistent in its use of lower-case names for the Verdi and Puccini operas, except for La Bohème. Rossini's Cenerentola is capitalized. Aida without the diaresis. What does Grove have? -- Viajero | Talk 14:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that the New Grove is an excellent source to go by; I wish I had a copy here to consult. How does it treat works like The Cunning Little Vixen? If we could figure out their title policy, I would be in favor with making that our policy, with the exception of titles commonly given in English such as The Marriage of Figaro and using English with Cyrillic titles. Why go half way with La Boheme when the New Grove uses La bohème?

203: Speaking only for myself, I really value DrG's enthusiasm and willingness to contribute here, and i don't see this thread as an attack on him, just an attempt to make a set of rules when previously there have not been any. --BaronLarf 14:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings everyone: I'm glad to see this discussion is going on.

I too use the New Grove as my main source (both the 1980 set and the current online subscription). The title of their Janacek opera article is: "Cunning Little Vixen, The [Přihody Lišky Bystroušky (‘The Adventures of the Vixen Bystrouška’)]."

My opinion is to use English capitalization since this is English Wikipedia: La Bohème (and with the grave accent). If consensus is to go with the capitalization as in the original languages, though, that's fine with me (but we'll have to redirect the cap titles to the l/c titles). On the other issue, I prefer using English titles for the operas most often referred to that way (The Bartered Bride vs whatever it is in Czech), but NOT for the ones almost always referred to in the native language (Der Rosenkavalier, Così fan tutte). There's a big gray area I know; we don't have to be perfectly consistent, and it's not possible anyway. If the Marriage of Figaro article ends up at Le Nozze di Figaro that's fine with me.

Thanks to all for your participation. There's a lot to be done in the area of opera; overall it's rather underdeveloped compared to other areas of Wikipedia. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have just made a redirect work at La Boheme. Taking Grove's as a model seems fine, but there must be redirects from the common ways an English-speaking user would enter the opera. I find full and exquisitely accurate page titles pretentious and not user-friendly: imagine typing out the Wikipedia title for Mme de Sevigné (I made the redirect). Full names should appear bolded and italicized in the first line or two. La Bohème is an issue since the first word is merely an article; sometimes the word under which a title will be alphabetized is capitalized. Sometimes not. Alphonse Daudet's Le petit chose vs Le Petit chose.

Let us follow Grove's.
Let us make copious redirects
Let us avoid owlishness. I Lombardi is the right page title, no italics. I Lombardi alla prima crociera, italics and bolded, is mentioned in the first line or so.--Wetman 17:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

Is there general consensus, then, to go with the following:

The name of the opera should be in its original language except:
- When the opera is commonly known in English-speaking nations by another title (i.e. The Marriage of Figaro)
- When the opera's full original name is widely shortened from its original title (i.e. I Lombardi)
- When the opera is in a language that are not easily pronounced in English (i.e. The Cunning Little Vixen)
Capitalization
- If the opera's title is rendered in its original language, capitalization the opera should follow the usage in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
- If the opera's title is rendered in English, use standard English usage.

--BaronLarf 19:06, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

This titling proposal is not working so well. Even when I research what is more famous, what other wiki-authors are using for terms, the pages I create still get renamed. Someone always has a better name. Even children's operas are not exempt. --DrG 03:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Actually, I think the naming scheme is fine -- it is just that many users are not be aware of it.;)

In cases like those you describe above, the best thing would be to state your rationale on the talk page, and copy it here, so that others can get involved as well. Point out our naming conventions and cite Google stats if appropriate. If the other party doesn't make a convincing case otherwise, undo the rename. Under some circumstances, the system won't let you move a page back, in which case only an admin can do this. If you leave a message on my talk page, I'll take care of it.

Sometimes Wikipedia can be a bit messy this way, but have patience. -- Viajero | Talk 10:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Master Peter's Puppet Show, DrG. Let's take the discussion to Talk:Master Peter's Puppet Show; suffice it to say that I disagree, but it's not important enough to fight about right now. Cheers. --Baron Larf 12:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Changing operas to the common English name

There will be a few more changes like the one that just went through for Marriage of Figaro. "Die Zauberflöte" should be next. After the page is moved, check the category indexing. (Marriage of Figaro was still alphabetized using Nozze di Figaro). I'd like to propose an additional idea. In cases like this where the page is titled in English, we use a soft redirect, (for the original title only, hard redirects for all others). This allows indexers to choose which title they what to index on. This way when you choose Category:Italian-language operas, you will see the Italian title, but in Category: Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart you see the English title. I did this with The Marriage of Figaro only, as a test case. See if you like it. --DrG 05:20, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Háry János and other operas with Latin-1 compatible accents

I saw that the article Hary Janos could not be moved to Háry János, and DrG asked that the title should be used without diacritics (Talk:Hary Janos). He refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation, but I'm afraid the policy is mistaken, since it is not at all in accordance with the overall Wikipedia usage. See for example the case of people or geographical names related to non-English-speaking countries. In fact, according to the current practice, all names used in Wikipedia retain their diacritics if these letters are present in the Latin-1 encoding. For example see Category:Cities, towns and villages in Hungary or Category:Hungarian people (with all its subcategories), or see these articles from different languages:

La bohème, Résumé, Crêpe, Château, Déjà vu, Ménage à trois (French), Hans Christian Ørsted, Søren Kierkegaard, Tor Nørretranders (Danish); Václav Havel, Emil Zátopek (Czech), Kurt Gödel (Czech-Austrian), Ernst Thälmann, Max Müller (German), Béla Bartók, Ferenc Mádl (Hungarian), Niccolò Machiavelli (Italian), José Saramago, Diogo Cão, Luís de Camões, Nuno Gonçalves (Portuguese), Ildefons Cerdà, Antoni Gaudí, Salvador Dalí, Benito Pérez Galdós, Luis Buñuel (Spanish); Sabiha Gökçen, Turgut Özal (Turkish).

Topics in 2004-2005

Shouldn't the "Scope" section also mention: Articles on individual operas? Deb 11:23, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Without knowing that there was a WikiProject on operas, I've recently been doing lots of work on operas and opera singers.

Created templates and categories for opera stubs and opera singers, and placed stub notices in places where it
Subcategorized opera singers into voice type and national origin
In the process of subcategorizing operas into original language and genre
In the process of disambiguating articles which include several operas in one article
Created articles on recently deceased opera singers

After that's all done, then I'll start working on fleshing out some of the articles one by one. Any feedback on this is welcome.--BaronLarf 03:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pages needing "Englishing"

The Queen of Spades and Eugene Onegin (opera) could use some work after apparently being updated by a non-native speaker. --BaronLarf 22:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pages marked for cleanup

José Carreras has been marked for cleanup. --BaronLarf 22:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just got an obsessive-looking (to an outsider, or just me) list of operas I've never heard of from someone who knows I'm sort of into sailing off on these sorts of musical explorations. Would anyone want the list for ideas for writing something about lesser-known operas? I don't actually know that the works on the list are particularly unknown to folks who've spent some time getting into it, but... it's free information in list form! --chaizzilla 02:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:Royal Opera, London

For documentary purposes, I have copied here the following text from Talk:Royal Opera, London -- Viajero 14:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Oliver Chettle, could you explain why you just reverted my merge of this article with Royal Opera House? Having two separate articles complicates things for those of us writing articles on operatic topics, particularly biographies of singers. The only case I found it to be necessary is Paris, where the Opéra National de Paris has been associated with more than one venue (Opera Bastille and Paris Opera). In all the other articles, the company and the house are dealt with together on one page since they are for all practical purposes one. Viajero 10:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are not one. They are legally separate, just as the Royal Ballet and the building are separate. The theatre is much older than the company. The Royal Opera House should not be categorised in opera companies because it is not an opera company. Oliver Chettle 11:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that, technically speaking, they are not one. However, in cases where the opera company has not been associated with two (or more) theaters for which we have entries, it makes sense to deal with them both on the same page. In nearly every singer biography, there is a line which goes something like this: "in 19xx singer X made his/her debut in [London]", where [London] is a variable. Hitherto, we have had to choose between linking to the "Royal Opera House" (the locale) or to "London" (the public); either is correct. Now you complicate things further by adding a third option: the company. Did singer X perform at the hall or with the company? In virtually all cases, the answer is: both. If you look at any other article on a major opera house, such as La Scala or Berlin State Opera you will see that the house(s) and the company are intertwined. It is not ideal but serves our purposes better than splitting things in separate pages. Please reconsider, especially given the fact that all of the information on this page can safely be brought under ROH, as my original merge demonstrated. -- Viajero 12:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Legally separate" is not a very useful distinction for the Wikipedia reader who might be kept in mind more constantly than she is. Is it really sensible to have two articles on each major opera venue, one for the house and one for the paper corporation that may or may not own the physical plant? Perhaps Oliver Chettle will take pity on the reader and the rest of us. --Wetman 13:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually everything I do on Wikipedia is done for the readers not for the comparatively tiny number of editors. I am unconvinced by the arguments put forward. The opera company article is just as legitimate as the ballet company article (I hope I haven't now exposed that to attack). The building has a long history which does not really relate to the present performing company, and much that should be written about the company has little to do with the building. Oliver Chettle 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Getting an opera article to Featured Article status

I've found that Porgy and Bess is listed for peer review. If we want to get an opera to attain featured article status, this is probably our best bet; it has a good deal of information already, has a number of interested editors already involved, and it's an English-language opera, which means it should be more readily accessible for English-language editors. Cheers. --Baron Larf 15:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. With a little work, it can be submitted to a Featured Article vote. -- Viajero | Talk 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to get permission for pictures from the Gyndeborne Production, and continue improving the plot section. --Alexs letterbox 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is now at the crucial WP:FAC stage. Please, state your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Porgy and Bess/archive1. The only current objections seem to stem around photographs; one person doesn't think there are enough, another believes that the photographs currently on the page stretch the definition of fair use. Any assistance would be appreciated. --Baron Larf 01:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

We did it! Porgy and Bess is now a featured article. --Baron Larf 01:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can I play, too?

I'm planning on starting a whole bunch of new opera articles (and expanding some of the stubs and shorter articles already in existence) when I get home from vacation in a week or two. Most of my plan is simply to work my way through the OperaGlass archive alphabetically, going to Grove and to the collections at the UTexas Fine Arts Library for the content.

I have already familiarized myself with the categorization schemes for opera. Hopefully, I won't be stepping on anyone's toes. Microtonal 29 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering you right away; I somehow missed your comment. Of course you can play! No one has any ownership of any articles or group of articles, and your contributions will be greatly appreciated. If we ever have any disputes over categorization or that sort of thing, this is the place to sort it out. Please feel free to add yourself to the list of participants as well. Cheers --Baron Larf July 7, 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Welcome Microtonal. Sounds good. There is lots to do here. -- Viajero | Talk 11:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Vocal profiles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines#Vocal profile controversy which may be of interest to participants. --Baron Larf 20:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

To Do list?

What do you think of making an opera "to do" list. That way people would know what things need to be done. Such as opera's that need pages, composers that need catagories... and so on. Further, if we have a to do list, should it go on the project opera page itself, or on this page? Captbaritone 23:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Collaborations?

After the success of the collaboration on Porgy and Bess I feel we should choose an article each week/month/period for collaboritive effort, particularly those concerned with individual operas. Most of these pages are just a short paragraph with a synopsis, but if we could take the effort that has gone into Porgy and Bess, we could have a respectable number of featured articles. --Alexs letterbox 07:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, why not Carmen then? --Viajero | Talk 10:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've done a little on Talk:Carmen outlining what I think the page desparately needs. --Alexs letterbox 23:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I alos like the idea, and will put in anything I can. Captbaritone 00:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Carmen

As some of you may have noticed, I have been working on the Carmen page. I have added about five recordings to the Recordings section, but I know that there are more famous ones than those presented. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find them using the Internet, and really need people with better General Knowledge than me. If you know of any more notable recordings (or consider the ones that I have put on the page as not so) then please add it using the format I have given. Thanks. --Alexs letterbox 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)