Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123Archive 124Archive 125→Archive 130
Archives Table of Contents

Royal Opera Programme Offer

My name is Rachel Beaumont and I work at the Royal Opera House. We are able to offer a small number of Royal Opera programmes from the 2014/15 Season free of charge to interested Wikipedians for research purposes, as part of our ongoing project with Wikimedia UK to help improve Wikipedia’s articles on opera and ballet. Royal Opera programmes include cast details, a production history and several essays by leading academics and commentators. Please see below a list of available titles.

If you are interested, please get in touch by email to rachel.beaumont at roh.org.uk with your address and which titles you would like.

We have a similar offer for Royal Ballet programmes – please see here for details.

Programmes available:

  • Andrea Chénier
  • Il barbiere di Siviglia
  • Un ballo in maschera
  • Król Roger
  • Orfeo
  • Rigoletto
  • Il turco in Italia

Rachel Beaumont (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rachel. Many thanks for this! I've moved your message here to the bottom where more members are likely to see it. Unlike message boards on other sites, it's the Wacky-Wikipedia-Way to put new comments last. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks Voceditenore! Rachel Beaumont (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be much more helpful to make these programmes available online, once a production has finished? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, programmes tend to be much more elaborate, but also cost money. Making them freely available would cut that income stream. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. They're like books with beautiful illustrations and lengthy articles written specifically for the programme. If the contents were online, people would just copy-paste it into their websites (or their own opera programmes), regardless of any copyright notice on the material. Especially so since they're in English. Having said that, La Fenice still has many of their past "programmi di sala" online, and they're of similar quality, albeit in Italian e.g. La traviata. Voceditenore (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

FA for 2017 main page- Don Carlos

I know the project has already selected Don Carlos for next month's 'Composer of the Month' section. I thought I might point out that the 150th anniversary of the opera is on March 11, 2017 which is not all that far off. Perhaps a concerted effort could be made to get this article up to FA class in time to appear on the main page on that date. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a couple good images for it.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do not put images (or, at least, more than one image) next to tables of roles

This is a screenshot of a former revision of Simon Boccanegra, as seen on a narrow screen.

Revision 674335028 of Simon Boccanegra. You can confirm this effect yourself simply by going to the revision and changing the width. Some role tables of more extensively revised operas have four or five columns, and will do this very quickly.

The three images appear, right-aligned, before the table. This behaved similarly on the mobile version, but centred the images.

We can't do this. One image might be excusable, but the practice of shoving multiple images next to role tables really must be phased out. I've pulled them from this article onto the talk page for redistribution, but, seriously, this just doesn't work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. This screenshot shows that it can work. It depends on the browser. The official Wikipedia Mobile app showed an image on my phone similar to yours, but that app has many flaws (for a start, it doesn't show categories). The screenshot I linked to was taken on the same phone using Chrome in Desktop mode – perfectly satisfactory. The normal mobile app also rendered the table of recordings almost unreadable; should we drop those, too? I don't think we can constrain all Wikipedia pages to parameters suitable for 4" screens. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, a point, but, still, I'd limit it to one or two pictures. Three is pushing it rather, particularly when they're collectively far taller than the table anyway. I don't think there's any situation where Negrini in the example will not be either entirely pushed down into the next section of the article or above the table. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Riki Turofsky

An article on soprano Riki Turofsky (sung with the New York City Opera and Houston Grand Opera among others) was recently created, but appears to be a copy paste job. She is notable with an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia if anyone cares to attempt a re-write rescue. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleted as blatant copyvio and re-created properly by 4meter4. It has now been semi-protected from repeated attempts to overwrite it with copyvio by her PR agent. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Which opera house?

[1] Which opera house is depicted here? I'm tempted terribly by this image, but am also a little worried, given how the opera itself is a tiny part. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Opera and Composer of the Month for October

Probably best to start discussing these now, while we still have ample time. Any suggestions? Might be wise to get November as well.

Checking the Opera corpus, Pavlos Carrer or Spyridon Samaras seem like a decent choice. Decently important in their local tradition, but all redlinks. But I've made enough suggestions of late. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adam. I've made Spyridon Samaras the October CoM and held over last month's OoM on Taming of the Shew opera (minus the one article created). I suggest Pavlos Carrer for November's CoM. Still thinking on suggestions for the November OoM. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Somebody with the IP addresses 188.92.209.131 and 94.100.224.24 keeps on vandalising the Wiki entry on Nino Surguladze. I undid his/her revisions for the reasons listed here: Talk:Nino_Surguladze. But I cannot keep on doing this indefinitely. Any help is appreciated. My latest revision from August is: 18:44, 16 August 2015‎ ParideVezzoso (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paride. I have reverted the latest series of edits. They are very inappropriate and have left a note at Talk:Nino Surguladze supporting you. I've also left notes on the talk pages of the two IPs, who are pretty clearly the same person. However, these edits do not constitute vandalism as defined by Wikipedia. So removing it is subject to the restrictions on reverting. Make sure you don't violate that. To be on the safe side, make no more than one revert in 24 hours. If this keeps up, I'll notify an administrator and/or the the BLP noticeboard. From the material they added, there is almost certainly promotional intent. From the material removed, it may be that they object to the person's full date of birth being published, although it is referenced to the BBC. I'm going to modify that to the year only. It would be helpful if other OP members could put this article on their watchlists. Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore! I used "vandalism" in a generic sense :) Since the date of birth is already publicly available (referenced to the BBC, and I also found it via Google), whoever wants it to be removed is probably wasting his/her energy. But in principle I can understand why a person with professional or personal links to Nino Surguladze would prefer not to publicise it any further (I'm not sure he/she will be happy about the year being reported!) ParideVezzoso (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, since I'm on my second revert and they continue to trash the article, I've notified the the BLP noticeboard and if necessary, I'll contact an admin who has dealt with these kinds of articles before. For now, I think the best thing is to just walk away from it, painful as it is, since I know you had put a lot of work into that article. If the following is the image of herself that she wants the world to see, so be it:
In 2014 She created The Benefit foundation (Desire Tree) To help children in need Foundation invited a lot of international stars to partisipate in the benefit Concerts and more than 15 children's health and precious lifes where saved. (now restored 4 times)
Not to mention the massive unformatted, unreferenced laundry list pasted into the second paragraph of the "Biography" section. UGH! It's one of the reasons that I generally stay completely away from articles about living singers (or recently deceased ones with a fanatical fan base). It's just not worth the time and aggravation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Voceditenore. I don't mind the amount of effort I put into the article. It's just that I find it difficult to understand is why one would prefer an unreadable self-congratulatory hodgepodge to a readable article. I'll leave it the way it is. But in any case, I greatly appreciate your help. ParideVezzoso (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paride. You'd be surprised how often that happens. We've had some real tussles at Talk:Chris Merritt, Talk:Jennifer Larmore and Talk:Burak Bilgili, to name a few. Ms. Larmore decided to tell the world that she was well-known for "her natural beauty" (among other things). Mr. Bilgilli got so incensed with our attempts to fix "his" article that he pasted a giant green frog on my talk page and pronounced me "completely insane" [2]. Anyhow, I think the notice at the BLPN had an effect. One editor who is active there went through the article yesterday and removed the mess. By the way, Surguladze's article had been deleted twice before (2010 and 2015) for blatant copyvio from here. Onwards and upwards. Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! I'd post the WP:DIVA essay for the singers but it's been renamed .... Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I've often been tempted to write an essay for opera singers and/or their publicists pointing out to them how their ministrations just make them look like fools and often illiterate ones at that. Meanwhile, I've just reverted yet another editor who re-added wholesale the stupid laundry lists to Nino Surguladze and in the process discovered these beauties: Markus Werba and Carmela Remigio—distinguished singers with unreferenced blather for articles. Double UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you should write that essay.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Internet labels

When compiling discographies of opera singers, among other sources I use Karsten Steiger's Opern-Diskographie. Next to standard commercial labels, this book includes releases by labels such as Premiere Opera, House of Opera and the likes, which it calls "internet labels" (see the discussion on pp. 9-10 and the list of these labels on pp. 16-17). What is a good way of categorising such entries in the Wiki discographies? And should I use the name "internet label" or there is something better?

As a starting point, here is an example of my approach: Laura Giordano#Discography, but I don't feel completely satisfied with it and am open to any suggestions.

In any case, care should be exercised with the cast and other information given by internet labels: I have encountered mistakes on many occasions. Also many performances are available on multiple labels. ParideVezzoso (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Paride. Basically, "internet labels" shouldn't be listed at all in opera articles. The project guideline is here. Past discussions leading to this guideline are here and most recently here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Voceditenore. Thanks for the information provided. To keep things simple, I'll remove the internet label entries I used in the article. But I can't say I am entirely convinced by the outcomes of that discussion; e.g., as I mentioned above, the internet labels have now made to a scholarly publication by a respected academic publisher (De Gruyter). ParideVezzoso (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you have answered the question with your edit of Giordano : Revision as of 12:39, 27 September 2015, where you took away two 'duplicate' listings. Perhaps these internet companies had copied or not licensed the two recordings published officially?? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
In many instances CDs or DVDs released by internet labels are copies of published works recorded off radio or TV broadcasts; those have no place in discographies. The rest is less clear to me, but as I have no intention of getting involved in discussions, I decided to simply follow the current WikiProject Opera guidelines. ParideVezzoso (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a comment: House of Opera existed before the Internet, so to refer to it as an "Internet label" is misleading. Why not use the term in use elsewhere, "unauthorized recordings"? - kosboot (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That said, if an "internet label" released a recording of an otherwise unavailable work... I think that would be an exception? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would it be an exception? It's still an unauthorized recording. - kosboot (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would depend on when it was from, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I found the following excerpt from this article (also available here in an updated form) amusing: After years of railing against “pirated” live Callas releases, EMI issued its own live 1958 Lisbon Traviata on LP as early as 1980 from privately owned tapes (EMI/HMV RLS-757, Angel ZBX-3910), transferring it nicely to CD in 1987 (though ruining it in a dreadful 1997 remastering). EMI’s live Callas efforts continued in 1990 with mediocre results effected by re-EQing random CD versions (Hunt/Arkadia, etc.—see my Spring 2000 TOQ article). In 1999, Jackie Callas claimed sole proprietorship of her sister’s live performances. Although the participation of many other artists in these performances made her claims ludicrous, she had lawyers send threatening letters to small companies issuing live Callas recordings. Most ignored her; some were cowed. Initially, she and a partner named Sakkaris issued CDs ineptly cloned from Hunt/Arkadia, Legendary, Rodolphe, Melodram, etc. on the Sakkaris/Diva label. One may only surmise that the enterprise was terminated because of the discs’ poor quality. In 2001, either out of charity or placation, EMI compensated Jackie Callas, now incorporated as “Marcal Investments” (MarCal = Maria Callas), to “license” anticipated live Callas recordings. ParideVezzoso (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Verdi project update.

Since we're not showing completed images here any more, an update:

First of all, Depending on how you count it, Verdi had between about 26 and 29 distinct operas (Things like Stiffelio/Aroldo, I Lombardi/Jérusalem, and, at the other extreme, Les vêpres siciliennes and I vespri siciliani (why are these separate articles, anyway?) and Don Carlos/Don Carlo (not separate, which is probably wise).

When Don Carlos is featured tomorrow - pretty much a certainty at this point - we'll have ten new featured pictures of Verdi I restored during the project (encompassing nine operas: Rigoletto, Un ballo in maschera, I Lombardi, Giovanna d'Arco, La traviata, Aida x2, La forza del destino, Attila, and Don Carlos), two featured pictures I didn't work on (Otello and a repeat of Aida), and one image of Luisa Miller which was a good idea to do, but will never pass featured picture due to relatively small size. Update: an image of Jérusalem is now finished and up at FPC as well.

As my goal is to try, as best as I can, to get at least one new, high-quality image for each opera of Verdi - I don't think I'll succeed, but I may come close - I think this puts us past the one-third mark.

There are also 11 other opera images not by Verdi: Les Troyens x3, Carl Nielsen, Robinson Crusoé, L'èclair, Ariadne auf Naxos, Cherubini's Mèdèe, La favorite, Béatrice et Bénédict, and Ambroise Thomas. All are featured. I'm going to try to keep Verdi and other roughly balanced.

All the images can be seen at WP:VERDI Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Category question

Just a thought, but shouldn't the opera singer cats be a subcategory of the actor cats. To be an opera singer is not just to be a musician, but also an actor. For example, Category:American opera singers could be a sub category of Category:American actors. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If that would become a subcategory, it would imply that all opera singers are fundamentally actors--and I feel that is a fundamentally incorrect assessment. Some opera singers would fit into that category, but I think many (in fact, most) would not. - kosboot (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Kosboot, do you attend opera performances? Opera singers wear makeup, costumes, learn a great deal of dialogue (even if it is mostly song), study character motivation, work with directors (many of whom work not just on operas but also stage plays), work with props and sets, learn how to sword fight or whatever else is necessary, and often nowadays work with acting coaches and attend acting classes. The days of park and bark performances are mostly gone. Today's audiences expect more and are given more. I regularly attend operas in multiple cities every year. I don't find your judgement to be true. Consider some of these sources [3], [4], [5] Best. 4meter4 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I live a 10-minute walk from the Metropolitan Opera House and I attend opera there and other places. Although one could expect that today's opera singers do plenty of acting and engage in extensive study of acting, I don't think one could argue that was the case in throughout the 19th century and certainly not before. Just because it might be true today does not mean it can retrospectively apply to history. As far as I know, opera and theater acting intersected with Delsarte; before that the background of actors and opera singers was entirely different, despite the fact that both appear on a stage. But let's hear from others. - kosboot (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
To draw a historic perspective, there are some interesting comments on acting and casting practices in 17th century Venetian opera beginning on page 243 in this book. It doesn't get much earlier than Monteverdi. There is also interesting sporadic tidbits throughout this book and pages 21-22 of this source are illuminating. Obviously the quality of acting is not always great in operas when casting is based solely on the singing voice. Even 17th century opera critics complained about bad acting. But whether the acting is bad or good, opera singers are acting since they are telling a story by portraying a character. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Student articles

This college class has been editing Wikipedia as an assignment. Could members take a look at the opera-related products:

Cecelia Hall

Just noticed that wikipedia has an article on sound editor Cecelia Hall but no article on Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano). Hall has sung leading roles at the Metropolitan Opera, the Bayerische Staatsoper, the Santa Fe Opera, Aix-en-Provence Festival, Seattle Opera, and the Lyric Opera of Chicago among others if anyone care to create an article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

List of major opera composers after AfD discussion

The AfD has been speedily closed after disucssion and withdrawal, and the Closer notes that there was a consensus to projectify as suggested by User:Voceditenore. There seemed also to be a general consensus that the article as it is will not do and would need a lot of rethinking. So what next?: my suggestion is that we projectify the existing article, leaving its present title as a redirect, and discuss here how (if at all) an article dealing with this topic can be constructed consistent with present WP standards. --Smerus (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. My comment about projectifying applied to the scenario of a "delete" result, although I agree that the list as it currently stands is very problematic. For one thing, as a project we cannot unilaterally remove an existing article to our project space. That's tantamount to deletion. The "official" result was Speedy keep and note that it was a non-admin closure. It also has a fair number of incoming links and you cannot have cross-namespace redirects. I'd suggest instead that we start a discussion here in its own section as to how to proceed and fix the article in situ. The other alternative (possibly less preferable) is to start a new AfD with the nominator specifically proposing 'Delete and projectify, hope that there's a strong majority of !votes to do that, and request that it be closed by an admin. Voceditenore (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I changed my vote to keep to satisfy others, but personally I think it should be deleted until a clear goal is resolved. What makes a "major" opera composer? Personally I don't think that's easily resolvable because there are too many one- or two-opera composers whose works are still performed today. The question becomes: Is a "major" opera composer one who wrote lots of operas? Wrote lots of operas that are frequently performed? Or is it just frequency of performance? I find all of these choices problematic. This list might have been appropriate as a kind of "Victor Book of the Opera" or other kind of marketing device ("My favorite operas") from the previous century. The more you think of the criteria for such a list, the more nothing seems to work. Even if WP:OPERA chose to come up with its own "favorite operas" I think there would be so much unnecessary discussion that I don't think it's worth people's time. - kosboot (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Everyone thinks this article is crap. That's a good starting point. kosboot sums up the problems more than adequately and I don't think they need expansion. This article can't be remedied by rewriting because its unsuitability for WP is embedded in its title. I withdrew the AfD nomination principally because of VdT's plea that it be retained in some form for historical reasons. Now it seems that the solution envisaged may not be kosher. So let's do things another way round:
  1. Projectify it now anyway (who forbids it?), by sending a copy to the WP:OPERA archives, and then:
  2. Relist it for AfD and, it is to be hoped, kill it.
If at any time in the future someone comes up with a viable article topic that can make it crystal-clear what it covers, with an appopriate defensible means of sourcing and citation, so be it. Like kosboot, I wouldn't want to waste my, and other people's, time on such a venture.--Smerus (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A possible solution. Smerus, the "Delete and projectify" solution would have been kosher had it been the explicit proposal in the nomination, and that it was what all participants were !voting on. In that scenario, the article would be moved to project space and all redirects in article space would be deleted. You could go for a new AfD on those terms. Just pasting the copy here without its article history isn't OK because it does not preserve attribution, a strict requirement. It needs to be moved lock, stock, and barrel to project space, and for that we need a clear AfD decision to that effect. My proposed solution below keeps the information about each composer on the current list in article space. It can be very useful to general readers and gives them an historical overview. The following would eliminate the currently glaring problems and potentially obviate a new AfD...
1. Change the title back to List of opera composers (currently a redirect)
2. Remove the introductory text and simply keep the list and its descriptions of each composer
3. Remove the bizarre section "Female opera composers" and simply integrate the two names listed in the appropriate chronological section.
4. Remove the subsection "Lists consulted and its "Notes"
Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note. By the end of the AfD Softlavender had a "Keep"; 4meter4 had a "Weak keep", Kosboot had simply struck his "Delete" with no explanation, and Smerus had withdrawn the nomination. The only possible outcome was "Speedy Keep". Smerus, if you do go for a new AfD on the new terms, "Delete and projectify", you need to make sure that the nomination is carefully written and the proposal is clearly laid out. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. We already have Category:Opera composers, and its subcategories. How do we then justifiy the selectivity of this article as List of opera composers - unless it it seriously proposed that we add to it everyone in the category, with a paragraph about each person. When (if) we revert to List of opera composers (which is fine by me if that's what people end up wanting), we then let ourselves in for some major work (not in itself a bad thing): but we need to be sure what our purpose is. Cf Category:Lists of novelists, which shows List of novelists by nationality and List of novelists by genre - both of which have subcategories of course. These are just alphabetical lists with dates as far as I can see, and to my mind serve no useful purpose except perhaps to keep literalist WP editors occupied and out of mainspace. (There are also relevant categories, e.g. Category:Australian women novelists, which don't (yet) have corresponding lists). Is that the sort of thing that VdT wants to let us in for? I guess probably not....so is the thing here to ask editors to help devise an appropriate AfD proposal?--Smerus (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Smerus, the only immediate work involved is simply changing the title and deleting text. There's no need to justify inclusion, simply state in the lead that it's a chronological list. Yes, it's then potentially open to endless additions, but I doubt that would happen, frankly. There have only been a handful of additions in the last five years. Having a list where all the entries are accompanied by descriptive text and an inline citation, tends to deter drive-by additions. Having said that, I'd have no objection to blowing it out of the water, if that's the consensus, and there are very good arguments for that, although note that AfDs are open to all editors and can have unpredictable results. My only concern is that the history and the talk pages be preserved as they are an important part of this project's history. If the new AfD result is a straight delete, I can always ask an admin post hoc to restore the pages to project space. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We have many, many lists that duplicate categories, and they are usually not much use. A selected list is better, even if subjective. There is absolutely no need to add links this to this to composer articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Frankly it seems ok to me, and will not badly mislead anyone new to the subject. I'd just leave it. Reading the AFD before ever looking at the article I'd expected much worse. It's our exhaustive normal lists and categories that are little help to beginners, imo, and despite the obvious subjectivity (and Anglo bias) this seems harmless and even useful. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
If only we met that standard all the time! Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • VdT if we adopt the proposals you make above (which would be acceptable to me) don't we need to make an admin request to undo the redirect?--Smerus (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, as one of the creators of the list, I think we did as good of a job as one could for making such a thing. Writing an encyclopedic list of that sort is difficult, but I don't think it suffers any more problems than any other such list does. It's, by its nature, a values judgement, and I can't think of any way to improve the method substantially - for example, lists of productions in major opera houses falls victim to fashions, and will have a strong bias towards recentism (for example, anniversaries can bring out an otherwise marginal composer). There's also the simple fact that major opera houses don't represent opera as a whole - Orpheus in the Underworld or The Mikado are produced incredibly frequently, but major opera houses rarely touch them (possibly because they're already readily available). And so on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Today, I'll be travelling trans-Atlantically (is that a word?). Will get back to this discussion tomorrow re Smerus's question and Adam's comment which raises some interesting issues. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If specific inclusions or omissions are contested, they should be addressed on the article's Talk page, as with any content dispute. There were no "Delete" votes in the AfD, which a redirect would be tantamount to. I think the article is fine as is. I also Oppose renaming and refocusing the article, which again would be tantamount to a Delete, and there were no Delete !votes at the AfD. Softlavender (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I originally compiled (scraped) the list way back in 2011 as a list of *INfrequently* performed composers, aimed at giving an incoming link to articles on contemporary composers, preventing them being flagged as orphans. VdT saw something else in the list and added it to project space under its current title.
For the purposes of the current conversation, it has both good and weak points. Perhaps some of these could inform or be reflected in whatever is the final solution for the list.
Good points:
  • it's from an external, non-arbitrary reference source -- there's an identifiable mechanism for inclusion which can be explained and defended (protects from cruft)
  • ranked. A ranked list has much more value than an unordered list to a reader new to opera, as this is the only way to find the core composers. The current list of major opera composers gives equal prominence to Walton and Wagner
  • consistency (at the top of the table at least): when I rediscovered the 'frequent' list last year, I compared it with the current list on Operabase and found the top 21 composers to be the same in the two lists, with a couple of small position changes. The figures come from sliding 5 year averages, so the effect of anniversaries is greatly minimised (the 2011 list has none, the 2014 list had Wagner, Verdi, Britten)
looking at the list and its rankings, weak points:
  • includes operetta composers. Perhaps not a problem .. it is a decision that can be made.
  • includes some music-theatre contributions in the rankings(?)
  • gives undue weight to composers of childrens operas. Unfortunately there are some countries which believe that many children should be given easy access to opera at a young age, and this inflates the number of performances of operas for children. Humperdinck, Naske usw are ranked more highly as a result
  • it's far too long (in general). The entries at the lower end of the table (in the hundreds) receive inclusion and ranking on a handful of performances, perhaps just one or two. Working through the table adding wikilinks in July, it was clear that the bottom of the table is much more changeable (inconsistent across time). There are a few well-known names in the region of rankings from 210 to 230/240, but it would not be impossible to chop the list at about 150.
  • it's old. The data comes from 2011 (though, actually, this doesn't matter if the list is made short)
Suggestion: refresh/shorten the 'frequent' list. Rename to List of opera composers. It's a sortable table now, so it doesn't need the sort order embedded in the title. If you really like cans of worms, add the dates of birth/ death, possibly a nationality so the table can be examined by time and/or geography.
If desired, add the criterion of 'composed at least one work designated as an opera' to cut out the operetta composers.
Run this list alongside the 'major' list as two separate co-existing articles, and then discuss if one has become redundant.
One final note. I've contracted existential nausea and need to spend some time away from opera, so it won't be me playing with this ... Have fun, and play nicely! Scarabocchio (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not seeing a strong consensus here to blast List of major opera composers with its original conception out of the water. It seems pretty evenly divided between the "blasters", the "keepers", and the "sitting on the fencers" (like me) who see the value of the arguments on both sides. I note that at the Featured list removal discussion, neither the nominator nor the other non-Opera Project commenter suggested that its concept was completely inappropriate. The main flaws they saw were: inadequate lead, relatively poor referencing, unencyclopedic tone in places, and possibly out of date sources. Whether the article needs reconceptualisation/major improvement should probably be discussed on Talk:List of major opera composers rather than here. For those who want it gone gone gone, my suggestion would be to start a new AfD in a few weeks, try to get as wide a participation as possible, and see what happens. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet on "keep" (either straight out or via "no consensus"). Scarabocchio, none of this precludes a separate list on frequently performed operas. They capture two different concepts. For example Jacopo Peri's big contribution is lost and thus never performed, but it doesn't diminish his importance as an opera composer. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible Opera of the Month topic

One area in which wikipedia is not all that active in is international opera/singing competitions. There are several prominent competitions that have no coverage. This might be a topic the project could focus on... although it does not readily fit under either opera of the month or composer of the month categories... Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

4meter4, I think it might be quite useful and I could cook up a rationale under Opera of the Month for it, but could you list the names of the competitions you had in mind? Two would be suffient, although we could certainly list more. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Two that immediately come to mind are the Belvedere International Singing Competition and the Neue Stimmen International Singing Competition.4meter4 (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. I've filled in December's OoM with them and included links to their articles on German Wikipedia. Feel free to add more if they come to mind. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Members may wish to browse de:Kategorie:Gesangswettbewerb (Klassik) for singing competitions with articles on the German wiki for topic ideas.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
See this useful list of international competitions from the World Federation of International Music Competitions. The wiki article lists several competitions without articles. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Becoming Santa Claus for DYK

Hi all. I thought it might be fun to have an opera related article up for Christmas at DYK. Dallas Opera just presented the world premiere of Mark Adamo's Becoming Santa Claus. This would make a great DYK submission. I am very busy and don't have too much time to throw an article together right now, but I have put together some sources here if anyone wants to take on the challenge. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.operanews.com/Opera_News_Magazine/2015/12/Reviews/DALLAS__Becoming_Santa_Claus.html

http://frontrow.dmagazine.com/2015/12/the-dallas-opera-delivers-a-wild-christmas-gift-with-becoming-santa-claus/

http://www.star-telegram.com/entertainment/arts-culture/article47811175.html

http://www.operaamerica.org/applications/nawd/newworks/details.aspx?id=1546

http://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/becoming-santa-claus-marks-dallas-operas-third-world-premiere-in-2015-7819375

http://www.theaterjones.com/ntx/reviews/20151207085805/2015-12-07/Dallas-Opera/Becoming-Santa-Claus

http://www.wfaa.com/videos/entertainment/2015/12/02/dallas-opera-presents-becoming-santa-claus/76673522/

http://www.broadwayworld.com/dallas/article/The-Dallas-Opera-Presents-World-Premiere-of-BECOMING-SANTA-CLAUS-Today-20151203

http://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2015/12/11/459364003/re-imagining-santa-claus-from-grasping-kid-to-avatar-of-generosity

I knocked out a quick stub. In anyone wants to help expand it to the required length for DYK we could double nominate it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Karen Kamensek

This draft needs some help if anyone cares to help a new wikipedian write an article on a notable subject. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it up, added refs and moved it to Karen Kamensek. Thanks for keeping an eye on these new drafts and articles, 4meter4. It's a big help! Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Branden James

Comments would be appreciated on this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've taken my handy-dandy red pencil to this completely misleading load of PR, tagged it for needing independent sources, and commented on the talk page. I've also replaced Category:American opera singers with Category:American tenors. As a project we don't have to worry about it anymore, unless the spurious claims to being an opera singer re-emerge. The article itself rings all the alarm bells, springing fully formed in one edit complete with multiple perfectly formatted but deliberately misleading references, and a perfectly formatted infobox [6]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


Genre

The Demon Editor of Wikipedia

  • Opéra comique * Drame mêlé de chant * Opéra biblique

by John Smith

A question came up (at an opera which became infamous as mentioned in a failed RfA): how precisely do we want to specify the genre of an opera in an infobox? For Carmen and Die Walküre, we simply say Opera. If wanted we could be more precise, as shown. How do project members feel about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  • You raise the whole issue here of whether infoboxes are suitable for operas. Where the genre of an opera is debatable, to make any single entry is to give the implication of an authority which may not be there. To give multiple genres, (particularly, as in the example here, without links), is confusing, especially to the lay reader. One would expect the issues related to genre to be discussed in the article - which is where such disucssions belong - not to be confusingly signalled in a decorative area in the article's north-east. And, to examine Gerda's point further, to denominate Carmen and Die Walküre as 'opera' is simply a waste of space. And in the case of Die Walküre (at least) positively misleading. The case raised here is typical of why many editors (including myself) regard infoboxes as distracting beds of Procrustes. If a fraction of the energy devoted by some to installing these devices were instead devoted to improving the articles concerned, WP would substantially benefit. So, Gerda, if you really want to know how I feel about it, the answer is.........--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I brought a different issue here. As shown, your are never restricted to a single entry. The question is how far should we go? Of course links can be provided when they exist (Opéra comique). - I hear the argument too often that something may be confusing to our readers. I would go for simple "Opera", it was not me who went for more specific terms. I think how far we go in such differentiation - keeping the goal in mind to have a concise infobox - is a general question which doesn't concern only one article. - To denominate Carmen as an opera is no waste of space, Carmen could be a novel, a song, a political movement ... - have mercy, tell the reader at a glance that it is an opera ;) - In the case of Walküre, it is just as misleading as the article itself, - as long as the lead calls it an opera, the infobox can hardly go for Bühnenweihfestspiel. Long live Falstaff and the wisdom at its end. We will begin 2016 with it, - with a good motto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda for pointing this out; I have corrected the box and article Walküre accoringly. Have you started your seasonal drinking early? :-} Bühnenweihfestspiel is I think only for our friend Parsifal. To call the Ring works 'operas' is an affront to RW, who before starting them said "I shall never write an Opera more. As I have no wish to invent an arbitrary title for my works, I will call them Dramas..." All best for Xmas and 2016, --Smerus (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
How could I possibly confuse Parsifal and Brünnhilde, so sorry. Just Bühnenfestspiel. Nice try, your four music dramas, but I think you need to try harder. Isn't it one music drama, presented in three days and a night before? What then is one of the parts? - How is saying "opera" an affront to the creator, but naming one of his children in English is not? How about that he planned to name them drama but in the end named one "Bühnenfestspiel", another "Eine Handlung"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, you are still not quite there. Wagner wrote (in A Communication to My Friends), "I propose to produce my myth in three complete dramas, preceded by a lengthy Prelude (Vorspiel)". We might therefore (possibly) give Rheingold the genre Vorspiel, but if the composer called the other three 'dramas', then so can we.--Smerus (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Die Walküre
  • tedious tosh
  • pretentious nonsense
by Richard Wagner
If we truly don't want to mislead the reader about Mr. Wagner, I think my solution is the best. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC) →
That image would also be useful for a template with a counter, caption: User hearing "the infobox is redundant" for the umptieth time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Using "Opera" for the |genre_header= parameter in these articles simply results in the top of the box saying "Opera by So-and-So". In cases where a work has been universally recognized as a Zarzuela or an Operetta, those can be used as genre headers instead of Opera. However, I am very opposed to filling in further sub-genres as this is better explicated in the text and often the subject of disagreement in the sources. A simple, concise box is a useful addition to the article and to the reader in my opinion. I use them for all the articles I create or expand, e.g. Flora mirabilis, Pontalba, La magicienne, etc. etc.. This business of objecting to "Opera" appearing at the top of the boxes for Joseph and Die Walküre as "positively misleading" is utterly ridiculous. The old navbox for Joseph [7] has a collapsed list titled... er... "Operas", and lo an behold, Joseph is listed there. Ditto the old navbox for Die Walküre [8]. Both these articles are in multiple Opera categories, e.g. Operas by Méhul, 1807 operas, French-language operas, etc. etc. No one objects to that as "positively misleading" the reader. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed the template, to accept alternatively to |genre_header= the more general |type, with the default content Opera. The parameter is consistent with {{infobox musical composition}} Talking about misleading: this is not necessarily the genre of the work, rather generally saying what the article is about: The Demon Editor, an opera, not a character from TV show or whatever else Demon Editor might mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, if you have changed Template:Infobox opera like that, which I guess is OK, you need to change Template:Infobox opera/doc. Otherwise the documentation is extremely confusing. Voceditenore (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I say no to the subgenres because there are so many. If you look at what composers of the late 19th century designate their operas you'll find numerous creative terms and phrases. I don't take these as subgenres, but rather as creative designations. Perhaps in the 19th century there was a big difference between a "grand opera" and an "opéra-comique" just as there was a big difference in the 18th century between an opera seria and a Singspiel. For those of us who study and obsess about opera these are big differences. For the remainder of the world, they are minor. I'd say leave the infobox genre as "opera" and use a specific designation in the lede. - kosboot (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I made the update, Voceditenore, thanks for the reminder. Three examples show all three variations on the theme "what to say above the image" now. kosboot, IF there is a specific genre, it should be mentioned, as in example 3. Love example 4 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well frankly, I'd leave out the opéra comique from Example 3 (La fille du régiment). I rather wish we didn't have that parameter at all. But that's a discussion for Template talk:Infobox opera, and right now I'm decking the halls with boughs of holly, so shall leave it to another day month. Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I made a note to te genre parameter that nothing may be best. Working on Christmas greetings with laughter (see my talk then, I won't post individual notes). More next year ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

French capitalization rules

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like some rules might benefit from being harmonized across WikiProjects and more general standards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have commented there. I have also reverted your wholesale change to Operas: capitalization and diacritics which were developed over many years and many discussions among this project's members to your preferred version without any prior discussion here nor with any consensus for such a change at this project. Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Help wanted on new stub on Arthur Davies (tenor)

This article created by a relatively new editor is so short that the notability of the subject is not even clear. I am not familiar with the artist, but a quick google search reveals an impressive discography with UK ensembles. He is notable. This article is in danger of a speedy nomination if some sort of notability isn't claimed in the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As predicted, the article was just slapped with a notability tag.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed Opera articles

If anyone is looking for some useful but relatively undemanding donkey work, this category needs to be ideally empty. There are currently 77 57 unassessed articles. I'll be working on reducing the category, but all help would be greatly appreciated. Since the category updates each time an article receives an assessment, there's little danger of overlapping work. When assessing, also check that the article is truly under the project's scope. Sometimes I find the banner on old theatres (especially in the US) which are called "X Opera House" but never actually saw or see opera performances on a regular basis and on pop singers who once took opera singing lessons or covered an aria on one of their recordings but have never once sung in an opera in an opera house. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_123&oldid=1190146952"