![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
FA non-opera articles
Voceditenore ( talk) 09:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Hopefully, I've nipped this in the bud, but watch out for cite spam for profsonstage.com, which is not a reliable source. I've repaired all the additions so far (the editor's sole contributions). In two cases the link did not support the assertion at all. In two more the reference was superfluous to existing references from much better sources, and in the remaining two I replaced it with a proper reference, although an inline cite was probably not even strictly required. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
I am ready to come back if you take me. Happy New Year! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See the discussion at Talk:Tosca#Peacock words. Members' views could be useful there. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)-
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)
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)
Question TonyTheTiger, et al., can I archive this section? Or is more feedback needed? Voceditenore ( talk) 12:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
I've now proposed changes to the format Category:Opera world premieres at Theatrename.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
Any other suggestions, corrections, or advice welcome. Thanks for any help! -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:03, 24 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone answer the new question on the Balfe talk page (that is, how many operas did Balfe actually write)? Thanks for any help or input. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a WP article/list of operas which are known to have existed but are lost? (I'm posting a related query to WP:Classm). kosboot ( talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
OperaGlass is not an official part of Stanford University, ahimè. The webmaster Rick Bogart is on the Stanford staff but somewhere in astrophysics.
The backbone of the site seems to be the worklists from Grove, but with some extensions by contributors (mostly from the Opera-L listserv) in the mid/late 90's. OperaGlass includes, for instance, the content of Chris Hapka's USOpera.com site.
The site has had a few scattered updates in recent years, with the pages for anniversaries last updated in 2012. This should not be a problem, as very few operas have been lost in the 21st century -- Silvio Barbato's Simón Bolívar being a possible exception. Scarabocchio ( talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RM to move the Opera Rara sponsor out of the way for the cricket coach to be absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The dab bot informed me that Wagner's work is no longer Lohengrin (opera) but Lohengrin (Wagner), and the former not even a redirect. I think that no redirect is a mistake, because in 100% of historic cases, Wagner's work was meant (links in archives are broken), and in estimated 90+% in the future, Wagner's will be meant. I vote for a redirect from opera to Wagner, not to disambiguation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place that editors of this project may be interested in at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed redirecting "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)". Thank-you. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You guys should have warned me, when I came here looking for help with La Loca, that writing about opera can be habit forming. I now have a couple of drafts where I would appreciate any advice or help you care to give - editing, style, places to look for references, a more appropriate infobox, etc. Even though these drafts are in my userspace, please feel free to edit them.
Thanks for any help! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia provides a neat mechanism for keeping an eye on articles that need periodic or regular updates — prizes and awards, competition results, seasons — List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, Ernst von Siemens Music Prize, BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition for instance.
The {{ Update after}} template takes a date (fully specified or partial) and embeds an inline warning tag for dated material when that date passes. More interestingly, it also adds the page to a named category of outdated pages, which could be monitored.
{{
Update after|2015|04|26|WP Opera articles in need of updating|reason=2015 results available}}
BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition
{{
Update after|2015|06|21|WP Opera articles in need of updating|reason=tense change needed}}
On the specified dates, these will add entries to Category:WP Opera articles in need of updating. The trick to making this template work well is to find the right level of category — too broad and no-one will maintain it, too narrow and there won't be enough traffic on it for it to be monitored regularly.
Question: is this something that should be done at the level of WP Opera?
Scarabocchio ( talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{show by date|yyyy|mm|dd|text to display before|text to display after}}
{{show by date|2015|11|01||{{update}}}}
Coming on the heels of Scarabocchio's request above: Lately I've come across articles on opera singers that lack footnotes, so I've added the {{no footnotes}} template. Is there a way where one could search and find all the WikiProject:Opera articles that lack footnotes (that is, that are tagged with that template)? kosboot
(Added the slash to close your open nowiki template. Softlavender ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 115 | ← | Archive 117 | Archive 118 | Archive 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | → | Archive 125 |
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
FA non-opera articles
Voceditenore ( talk) 09:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Hopefully, I've nipped this in the bud, but watch out for cite spam for profsonstage.com, which is not a reliable source. I've repaired all the additions so far (the editor's sole contributions). In two cases the link did not support the assertion at all. In two more the reference was superfluous to existing references from much better sources, and in the remaining two I replaced it with a proper reference, although an inline cite was probably not even strictly required. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
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:
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)
I am ready to come back if you take me. Happy New Year! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See the discussion at Talk:Tosca#Peacock words. Members' views could be useful there. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)-
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)
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)
Question TonyTheTiger, et al., can I archive this section? Or is more feedback needed? Voceditenore ( talk) 12:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
I've now proposed changes to the format Category:Opera world premieres at Theatrename.-- Smerus ( talk) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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.
Any other suggestions, corrections, or advice welcome. Thanks for any help! -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:03, 24 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone answer the new question on the Balfe talk page (that is, how many operas did Balfe actually write)? Thanks for any help or input. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there a WP article/list of operas which are known to have existed but are lost? (I'm posting a related query to WP:Classm). kosboot ( talk) 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
OperaGlass is not an official part of Stanford University, ahimè. The webmaster Rick Bogart is on the Stanford staff but somewhere in astrophysics.
The backbone of the site seems to be the worklists from Grove, but with some extensions by contributors (mostly from the Opera-L listserv) in the mid/late 90's. OperaGlass includes, for instance, the content of Chris Hapka's USOpera.com site.
The site has had a few scattered updates in recent years, with the pages for anniversaries last updated in 2012. This should not be a problem, as very few operas have been lost in the 21st century -- Silvio Barbato's Simón Bolívar being a possible exception. Scarabocchio ( talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RM to move the Opera Rara sponsor out of the way for the cricket coach to be absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The dab bot informed me that Wagner's work is no longer Lohengrin (opera) but Lohengrin (Wagner), and the former not even a redirect. I think that no redirect is a mistake, because in 100% of historic cases, Wagner's work was meant (links in archives are broken), and in estimated 90+% in the future, Wagner's will be meant. I vote for a redirect from opera to Wagner, not to disambiguation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place that editors of this project may be interested in at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Proposed redirecting "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)". Thank-you. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
You guys should have warned me, when I came here looking for help with La Loca, that writing about opera can be habit forming. I now have a couple of drafts where I would appreciate any advice or help you care to give - editing, style, places to look for references, a more appropriate infobox, etc. Even though these drafts are in my userspace, please feel free to edit them.
Thanks for any help! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia provides a neat mechanism for keeping an eye on articles that need periodic or regular updates — prizes and awards, competition results, seasons — List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, Ernst von Siemens Music Prize, BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition for instance.
The {{ Update after}} template takes a date (fully specified or partial) and embeds an inline warning tag for dated material when that date passes. More interestingly, it also adds the page to a named category of outdated pages, which could be monitored.
{{
Update after|2015|04|26|WP Opera articles in need of updating|reason=2015 results available}}
BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition
{{
Update after|2015|06|21|WP Opera articles in need of updating|reason=tense change needed}}
On the specified dates, these will add entries to Category:WP Opera articles in need of updating. The trick to making this template work well is to find the right level of category — too broad and no-one will maintain it, too narrow and there won't be enough traffic on it for it to be monitored regularly.
Question: is this something that should be done at the level of WP Opera?
Scarabocchio ( talk) 05:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
{{show by date|yyyy|mm|dd|text to display before|text to display after}}
{{show by date|2015|11|01||{{update}}}}
Coming on the heels of Scarabocchio's request above: Lately I've come across articles on opera singers that lack footnotes, so I've added the {{no footnotes}} template. Is there a way where one could search and find all the WikiProject:Opera articles that lack footnotes (that is, that are tagged with that template)? kosboot
(Added the slash to close your open nowiki template. Softlavender ( talk) 11:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC))