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 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | Archive 125 |
I am an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so before I make a major change to this article, I would like to solicit feedback from the folks that are most likely to have suggestions or objections. The article is in need of major revisions because it incorrectly identifies this piece as an aria rather than a duet. (I'm assuming this is based on the popular version Parisotti included in his collection.) I've prepared an accurate description of the piece, included a new translation (more word-for-word or line-by-line rather than a singable English version). The new version is over in my sandbox right now. Again, because I have only ever done very light editing before, I may not have the formatting correct, so please don't be too unkind.-- LadyIslay ( talk) 23:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just heard that John Webber, known in these pages as Viva-Verdi, has died. [1] RIP. Scarabocchio ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I knew it was only a matter of time before they monkeyed with the www.amadeusonline.eu/almanacco.php version. The search facility is now disabled and only renders the happenings for "today". We're back to 100s of broken links in refs. Most of the entries are available as cached versions via a Google search , e.g. [2], but I doubt if that will last long. Grrrrrr. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Update Well, it's not a complete disastro, just a mezzo-disastro. The search facility is back on the .net version of the site at http://www.amadeusonline.net/almanacco.php. However, the URL for the results is completely different. You cannot simply substitute .net for .eu in the old URLs. Example:
Scarabocchio, is this going to be easy to fix in your Template:Almanacco? Voceditenore ( talk) 08:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to something in Viva-Verdi's memory, and trying to get more Verdi featured content seemed suitable. Want to commit to this here so I can't back out. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have gone dead (see top of page and click 'show')- are there any proposals forthcoming?-- Smerus ( talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't promise anything, obviously, but given I want to do a lot of opera anyway, if there's requests, I can try. More general requests ("Operas by Wagner") are more likely to succeed than specific (" Das Liebesverbot"), though that example may be an exception. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request an edit to the edit-protected Template:WikiProject Opera (the one that goes on the talk page of all the articles in our scope), but wanted to run this past members first. I'd like to have Draft class added. Like the List class, it wouldn't require a further quality rating. This would help us to keep track of opera-related drafts and make it easier for the Articles for Creation reviewers to ask for specialist advice on whether the draft should be moved to article space, declined pending improvement, or incinerated. Any objections? Voceditenore ( talk) 07:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently created, probably by someone with a conflict of interest. However, it is a notable baroque ensemble with a discography. It is worth rescuing from speedy deletion if anyone has time. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done some work to fix it, but Aida had major image problems, to whit, images were completely inappropriately positioned: 19th century images in the section on the 20th century and vice-versa; Images placed next to the wrong act, and so on. I've tried to fix it, but there's still issues:
Here's the images I think are most valuable, and should stay:
And the second tier (valuable, but not as:
There's also File:Aida trumpets.jpg which I'm not sure of the value of, but am willing to be convinced.
Should I just reduce to those, and the sound files (useful to give an idea of the music) and cut the rest? The rest are either poorly attributed, or rather poorly shot (e.g. File:Auguste mariette - croquis pour la première d'Aïda.jpg WOULD be valuable, but it's very poorly cropped and reproduced, and I think that too low quality of images can make us look a little too amateur. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over recent weeks infoboxes have been added to nearly all of the Wagner operas. In many cases this was done by User:Gerda Arendt, who in the talk page of the opera wrote 'I suggest an infobox' and four days later simply added it. I have not noted any discussion in the talk pages, nor was the issue raised here or at WP:Wagner. In other cases editors have replaced the standard template with an infobox, without discussion on the talkpage or elsewhere. The consensus was reached, after a painful arbcom discussion, that there should be discussion of infoboxes before they are installed. In the present case it looks as if there has been a deliberate 'stealth' campaign to supply Wagner operas with infoboxes one by one, without raising the generic issue her or at WP:WAGNER. I have therefore reverted all to the Wagner operas template, pending discussion here or other appropriate locations. I am copying this to WP:WAGNER. For the record. I am against such infoboxes, which duplicate the information in the lead paragraphs.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to make it clear, but do so once again, that my raising the issue here has nothing to do with the arbcom - it is about courtesy and proper discussion. Gerda made brief comments on each talkpage and then proceeded without awaiting response. The other editor(s) did not even raise the issue on the talkpage. As Gerda, at least, clearly intended/intends to move through all the remaining Wagner operas (she included the unfinished operas which noone was very likely to have on a watchlist), she might have notified us here. As she didn't, I am taking the opportunity to have a clear discussion. By the way, the other editor involved (Master and Margarite) is known to Gerda - she might at least have advised him/her of the requirement to raise infobox proposals on talk=pages.-- Smerus ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I really wish some people would get over their enmity to infoboxes. Most Wikipedia readers aren't here to read a 40kb screed on Siegfried's funeral march, or the Liebestod, or how he came to write Parsifal. They'll look at the lede, a cursory swipe through the article, or egads...scan an infobox and then move on. If were not including an infobox, and bitching about it on spurious grounds like aesthetics, we're being exclusionists and elitists ignoring the needs of a wide swath of readers. We're providing content for readers, many who don't have the time to read 10,000 words or care to, and sadly most of them don't care about much more than acquiring a few facts. There are times I look at articles for a fact or two and dont care to read the rest (biographies mostly, but frequently artistic works, too). So get over it, an infobox might not be your thing, but they're here and they serve a big purpose. You have no substantive reason to oppose an infobox beyond a puerile insistence on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JackTheVicar ( talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So, just to get the facts straight:
Right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
On checking, I also note that this project's guidelines (the results of a well-attended RfC) say:
Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
I'll repeat the last part, for clarity:
at each individual article
So, unless my timeline above is in error, I can't quite see what Gerda is supposed to have done wrong, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I never [5]. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hatting discussion that has dissolved into personal attacks
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Methinks Gerda doth protest too much. When we look at the facts, some defence is certainly needed. Let’s just recall the ArbCom decision of 30th November 2014, which banned Gerda from engaging in Infoboxes for six months – i.e. until end-May 2015. Now let’s look at the addition of infoboxes to Wagner opera articles by editor and date. Remembering also that until I flagged the issue up in WP:OPERA and WP:WAGNER, there had been no attempt by any of the editors involved in creating these boxes to notify other editors that such a campaign was underway. And noting by the way that the relationship between Meister und Margarita, Andy Mabbett and Gerda is evident from the former’s talkpages - in which Gerda - in the 10th May, and thus still under infobox interdict - thanks Meister for 'breaking the curse of the Ring' (what a giveaway! so Gerda was in fact actively encouraging others to add infoboxes whilst prohibited herself).
So the sequence is follows: Meister begins to create infoboxes in April and May whilst Gerda is under interdict. In July, when Gerda is a month free from interdict, Gerda continues to create infoboxes, Whilst Meister creates no more. After the intervention of User:Drmies, the QAI member Alakzi finishes the job, with more enthusiasm than competence (e.g. telling readers that the conductor of Tristan was the cartoonist Vicco von Bülow – so much for quality and accuracy!) This is scarcely a spontaneous uprising of music-oriented editors determined to have their beloved infoboxes. It is rather a concerted campaign by Gerda and those sympathising with her to encrust Wikipedia with cruft, when they could otherwise have been writing decent articles (as Gerda often does, and as I could be instead of rolling out this sad story). No wonder that editors are being driven from Wikipedia when subjected to the harassment of the QAI warriors. See my talkpage for a recent departure, and for the crocodile tears of Gerda at same. This is not a burla/joke - it is a consistent attempt at cultural enforcement which is irrespective of encyclopaedic value.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I've hatted part of the above discussion as it has devolved into personal attacks and that gets us nowhere. The bottom line is that consensus can change. I have respect for the approach that was taken earlier, to allow a case-by-case discussion per the arbcom mandate. Further complaints and attacks here are serving no purpose at all. Some people like infoboxes, some people don't like infoboxes, and in this project, reasonable people may differ, and the solution may well be to split the baby and let each faction focus on the articles they care about the most, with rational and respectfulhey get together and put everything to rightsdiscussion on the few where a clear lead editor is difficult to determine. Montanabw (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, whatever your rationale for hatting the above, I agree with your conclusions. The ownership issue highlighted by Alakzi transcends however the petty issue of infoboxes. The true issue is whether a vigilante group knows better than all other editors and owns the soul of WP as a consequence of its unique enlightenment. The fact that they have a leader in partial exile adds to the romance and excitement of their mission. They are the gumbie cats of Wikipedia: they may be (for the most part) charming and lovable, but when (they hope) the rest of the world is asleep, they gather together to put everything to rights (as they see it). And then some of them are not slow to extend claws to to those who beg to differ.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Never have I been so glad to be away for a month with limited internet access. What an unedifying spectacle, I find on my return . Virtually a re-run of 2013 when editors on both sides of this issue nearly brought a highly productive and previously enjoyable project to its knees. When infobox opera was developed the consensus was that it is available as an option and that whether or not to include it and how much of it to include should be discussed on individual article talk pages if anyone objects. This project talk page is for planning collaborations, seeking help with sourcing and fact-checking, improving and finding good images, celebrating Rossini's birthday etc. It is not the place to
I'm going to close this discussion. Can I ask you all to please not re-open it. It's quite clear that at the moment a few editors have fairly entrenched positions on this issue. This is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. You may find it inconvenient to slug it out article-by-article but that's the way it is too. Relentless and personalised attempts to continue rehashing this general issue here are utterly sterile and destructive. I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes. But that is neither here nor there. The world is not going to come to an end if some articles do not have them and vice versa. So...
Voceditenore ( talk) 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
A useful consequence of the above farrago has been that inspection reveals many of the Wagner opera articles to be of mediocre or even poor quality. I am currently looking at Siegfried and anyone else who wishes to improve there is welcome. User: Adam Cuerden is kindly assisting on the images.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Un ballo in maschera,
I Lombardi,
Giovanna d'Arco,
Les Troyens,
La Prise de Troie,
Les Troyens à Carthage is are now a featured pictures. The images for
Rigoletto,
I Lombardi alla prima crociata,
Giovanna d'Arco, and
Les Troyens [all passed], are up at
featured picture candidates, but - probably owing to it being the time university students have their final exams, at a guess - participation at featured pictures is in the middle of a lull, and, with the exception of the three Les Troyens images and I Lombardi, they may not reach quorum and thus have to be renominated later.
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 20:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: Problem seems to have passed; only Rigoletto failed to reach quorum.
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Also featured: File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg and File:Giuseppe Verdi, La traviata title page - Restoration.jpg. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Giuseppe_Verdi,_Rigoletto,_Vocal_score_illustration_by_Roberto_Focosi_-_Restoration.jpg as well. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) File:Strauss, Richard - Ariadne auf Naxos - Restoration.jpg which I think is the first modernist opera with a featured picture (or, at least, one specific to it). Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to stop listing. They're coming in rather fast, and I'm marking them up above with stars. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone has created Nadine Koutcher (the winner) today. It's a two-sentence stub that could use... er... considerable expansion. I swapped out the ever-ghastly {{ infobox Musical artist}} for the more tasteful {{ Infobox person}}. I've created a stub which also needs expansion for Jongmin Park, who won the Song Prize.
Meanwhile, it appears that an article has existed since 2012 for the chap who won the Dame Joan Sutherland Audience Prize, but it's currently got a Mongolian-style title, Enkhbatyn Amartüvshin (patronymic first). Not sure how appropriate that is. Anyhow, I've created a redirect for the name he's known by in European opera houses, Amartuvshin Enkhbat. Maybe should be the other way 'round?
I had rather fancied Oleksiy Palchykov, a Ukranian tenor who already has a significant career and won the first heat, but I gather he wasn't loud enough. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
With a view to getting Giuseppe Verdi up to GA (eventually), I've now weeded out and reorganized many of the images in the article, and begun copyediting. But in the process it looks to me like the article needs very substantial rewriting. It is full of a lot of clutter detail about individual operas that really belong in the opera articles rather than the biography article. And there is very little about influence, etc. (or indeed provenance - what V took over from Grand Opera, Rossini, etc. etc.). In the process V's actual life seems to me difficult to extrapolate for the general reader. But before I go much further I would appreciate some other opinions. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 19:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've flushed out a number of pix, and relocated details on the operas to a separate section. This has revealed that the biography section was extremely uneven, containing a lot of inconsequential detail and unenlightening quotes from various writers; many passages were (and are) based on one particular biographer, with much space given to rumour and suppositions. I've begun to copyedit the existing text, inadequate though it is. For example, there is almost nothing on the final 20 years of Verdi's life. I would hope eventually to achieve a complete rewrite, based on four areas - biography, music, reception and legacy - which I have found to be appropriate and acceptable in other GAs on which I have worked. But this is going to take quite a while.-- Smerus ( talk) 07:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On articles that list roles by voice type, the only source cited is Guide to Operatic Roles and Arias, and there are very few roles from contemporary opera listed. Is there a good source for classifying roles from more contemporary opera composers like Philip Glass, Harrison Birtwistle or Kaija Saariaho? SpiritedMichelle ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I've now created a full(ish) version of the article but am feeling brain-dead. Please look and comment - is it now appropriate to go for peer review - or even for GA review?-- Smerus ( talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Smerus: Okay, here's the referencing errors:
I can't fix any of these without access to the sources to check the references - it's not clear, and we don't want to get this fixed wrong. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who are interested, Giuseppe Verdi is now up for GA - anyone is welcome to start the review. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 10:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Now GA.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Just noticed we don't have an article on the Arundel Festival which does produce opera among other arts. I'm not from the UK and know nothing about it. Anyone care to take a crack at creating an article? 4meter4 ( talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judit Kutasi. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just came across a new poorly conceived article which I have been cleaning up. I am having a bit of trouble finding references for tenor Attila B. Kiss (often given as Atilla Kiss B.; Opera magazine specifically says it should be Atilla B. Kiss) which was recently created by another editor with no references. He has won two notable prizes (although there are no sources for this), so notability is probably not an issue. That said, everything I've come across so far other than one mention in a review in Opera seems to be press releases from the opera houses which include his bio most likely written by his agent. Another issue I've come across is when the article was created the author describes him as Hungarian even though he was born in Romania, trained in Romania, and made his professional debut in Romania (according to the Hungarian wikipedia which entirely unreferenced). He has been working primarily at the Hungarian State Opera House in recent years and he is from a part of Romania that used to be part of Hungary, so I suppose its possible that he became a Hungarian citizen and that he may be of Hungarian ethnic descent. For the time being I changed the article to Romanian until a source can prove otherwise. Any help sourcing or expanding this stub would be helpful. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Although VOICExperience Foundation is not the worst COI creation I've ever seen, it does need some help. At least the author took the time to add some good references to the article, even if the tone is somewhat unencyclopedic. It needs categories and cleanup. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a column for composer gender to the new table of Frequently performed opera composers despite my incurable gender-blindness, and feeling that gender is given too much weight in general. I'm with Thea Musgrave on this one ("Thea Musgrave is frequently interviewed and questioned about being a "woman" composer, to which she has replied; "Yes, I am a woman; and I am a composer. But rarely at the same time." (her website, at some time in the past)). That said, composers of the female gender are a very high-profile topic at the moment, and some readers may wish to know how they fare in numbers and rankings compared with the composers of the male gender. Scarabocchio ( talk) 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just noticed that The Taming of the Shrew (opera) actually links to a section on opera adaptations in the wikipedia article about the play. There are many operas that have been based on Shakespear's The Taming of the Shrew, most of which have no articles on wikipedia. I would suggest that we create articles on the operas mentioned in the article on the play. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"John Kendrick Bangs' Katherine: A Travesty (1888) is a Gilbert and Sullivan-style parody operetta which premiered in the Metropolitan Opera" - why am I suspicious of that "Gilbert and Sullivan-style" description? Burlesques and travesties long predate Gilbert, indeed, he got his start doing them. On the other hand, H.M.S. Pinafore madness is documented in America at around that time, so it's not an impossible influence... Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:25, 4 July 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 119 | Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122 | Archive 123 | → | Archive 125 |
I am an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so before I make a major change to this article, I would like to solicit feedback from the folks that are most likely to have suggestions or objections. The article is in need of major revisions because it incorrectly identifies this piece as an aria rather than a duet. (I'm assuming this is based on the popular version Parisotti included in his collection.) I've prepared an accurate description of the piece, included a new translation (more word-for-word or line-by-line rather than a singable English version). The new version is over in my sandbox right now. Again, because I have only ever done very light editing before, I may not have the formatting correct, so please don't be too unkind.-- LadyIslay ( talk) 23:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I have just heard that John Webber, known in these pages as Viva-Verdi, has died. [1] RIP. Scarabocchio ( talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I knew it was only a matter of time before they monkeyed with the www.amadeusonline.eu/almanacco.php version. The search facility is now disabled and only renders the happenings for "today". We're back to 100s of broken links in refs. Most of the entries are available as cached versions via a Google search , e.g. [2], but I doubt if that will last long. Grrrrrr. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Update Well, it's not a complete disastro, just a mezzo-disastro. The search facility is back on the .net version of the site at http://www.amadeusonline.net/almanacco.php. However, the URL for the results is completely different. You cannot simply substitute .net for .eu in the old URLs. Example:
Scarabocchio, is this going to be easy to fix in your Template:Almanacco? Voceditenore ( talk) 08:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to something in Viva-Verdi's memory, and trying to get more Verdi featured content seemed suitable. Want to commit to this here so I can't back out. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems to have gone dead (see top of page and click 'show')- are there any proposals forthcoming?-- Smerus ( talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't promise anything, obviously, but given I want to do a lot of opera anyway, if there's requests, I can try. More general requests ("Operas by Wagner") are more likely to succeed than specific (" Das Liebesverbot"), though that example may be an exception. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to request an edit to the edit-protected Template:WikiProject Opera (the one that goes on the talk page of all the articles in our scope), but wanted to run this past members first. I'd like to have Draft class added. Like the List class, it wouldn't require a further quality rating. This would help us to keep track of opera-related drafts and make it easier for the Articles for Creation reviewers to ask for specialist advice on whether the draft should be moved to article space, declined pending improvement, or incinerated. Any objections? Voceditenore ( talk) 07:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was recently created, probably by someone with a conflict of interest. However, it is a notable baroque ensemble with a discography. It is worth rescuing from speedy deletion if anyone has time. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've done some work to fix it, but Aida had major image problems, to whit, images were completely inappropriately positioned: 19th century images in the section on the 20th century and vice-versa; Images placed next to the wrong act, and so on. I've tried to fix it, but there's still issues:
Here's the images I think are most valuable, and should stay:
And the second tier (valuable, but not as:
There's also File:Aida trumpets.jpg which I'm not sure of the value of, but am willing to be convinced.
Should I just reduce to those, and the sound files (useful to give an idea of the music) and cut the rest? The rest are either poorly attributed, or rather poorly shot (e.g. File:Auguste mariette - croquis pour la première d'Aïda.jpg WOULD be valuable, but it's very poorly cropped and reproduced, and I think that too low quality of images can make us look a little too amateur. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over recent weeks infoboxes have been added to nearly all of the Wagner operas. In many cases this was done by User:Gerda Arendt, who in the talk page of the opera wrote 'I suggest an infobox' and four days later simply added it. I have not noted any discussion in the talk pages, nor was the issue raised here or at WP:Wagner. In other cases editors have replaced the standard template with an infobox, without discussion on the talkpage or elsewhere. The consensus was reached, after a painful arbcom discussion, that there should be discussion of infoboxes before they are installed. In the present case it looks as if there has been a deliberate 'stealth' campaign to supply Wagner operas with infoboxes one by one, without raising the generic issue her or at WP:WAGNER. I have therefore reverted all to the Wagner operas template, pending discussion here or other appropriate locations. I am copying this to WP:WAGNER. For the record. I am against such infoboxes, which duplicate the information in the lead paragraphs.-- Smerus ( talk) 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to make it clear, but do so once again, that my raising the issue here has nothing to do with the arbcom - it is about courtesy and proper discussion. Gerda made brief comments on each talkpage and then proceeded without awaiting response. The other editor(s) did not even raise the issue on the talkpage. As Gerda, at least, clearly intended/intends to move through all the remaining Wagner operas (she included the unfinished operas which noone was very likely to have on a watchlist), she might have notified us here. As she didn't, I am taking the opportunity to have a clear discussion. By the way, the other editor involved (Master and Margarite) is known to Gerda - she might at least have advised him/her of the requirement to raise infobox proposals on talk=pages.-- Smerus ( talk) 11:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I really wish some people would get over their enmity to infoboxes. Most Wikipedia readers aren't here to read a 40kb screed on Siegfried's funeral march, or the Liebestod, or how he came to write Parsifal. They'll look at the lede, a cursory swipe through the article, or egads...scan an infobox and then move on. If were not including an infobox, and bitching about it on spurious grounds like aesthetics, we're being exclusionists and elitists ignoring the needs of a wide swath of readers. We're providing content for readers, many who don't have the time to read 10,000 words or care to, and sadly most of them don't care about much more than acquiring a few facts. There are times I look at articles for a fact or two and dont care to read the rest (biographies mostly, but frequently artistic works, too). So get over it, an infobox might not be your thing, but they're here and they serve a big purpose. You have no substantive reason to oppose an infobox beyond a puerile insistence on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JackTheVicar ( talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So, just to get the facts straight:
Right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
On checking, I also note that this project's guidelines (the results of a well-attended RfC) say:
Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
I'll repeat the last part, for clarity:
at each individual article
So, unless my timeline above is in error, I can't quite see what Gerda is supposed to have done wrong, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I never [5]. -- Folantin ( talk) 14:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hatting discussion that has dissolved into personal attacks
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Methinks Gerda doth protest too much. When we look at the facts, some defence is certainly needed. Let’s just recall the ArbCom decision of 30th November 2014, which banned Gerda from engaging in Infoboxes for six months – i.e. until end-May 2015. Now let’s look at the addition of infoboxes to Wagner opera articles by editor and date. Remembering also that until I flagged the issue up in WP:OPERA and WP:WAGNER, there had been no attempt by any of the editors involved in creating these boxes to notify other editors that such a campaign was underway. And noting by the way that the relationship between Meister und Margarita, Andy Mabbett and Gerda is evident from the former’s talkpages - in which Gerda - in the 10th May, and thus still under infobox interdict - thanks Meister for 'breaking the curse of the Ring' (what a giveaway! so Gerda was in fact actively encouraging others to add infoboxes whilst prohibited herself).
So the sequence is follows: Meister begins to create infoboxes in April and May whilst Gerda is under interdict. In July, when Gerda is a month free from interdict, Gerda continues to create infoboxes, Whilst Meister creates no more. After the intervention of User:Drmies, the QAI member Alakzi finishes the job, with more enthusiasm than competence (e.g. telling readers that the conductor of Tristan was the cartoonist Vicco von Bülow – so much for quality and accuracy!) This is scarcely a spontaneous uprising of music-oriented editors determined to have their beloved infoboxes. It is rather a concerted campaign by Gerda and those sympathising with her to encrust Wikipedia with cruft, when they could otherwise have been writing decent articles (as Gerda often does, and as I could be instead of rolling out this sad story). No wonder that editors are being driven from Wikipedia when subjected to the harassment of the QAI warriors. See my talkpage for a recent departure, and for the crocodile tears of Gerda at same. This is not a burla/joke - it is a consistent attempt at cultural enforcement which is irrespective of encyclopaedic value.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I've hatted part of the above discussion as it has devolved into personal attacks and that gets us nowhere. The bottom line is that consensus can change. I have respect for the approach that was taken earlier, to allow a case-by-case discussion per the arbcom mandate. Further complaints and attacks here are serving no purpose at all. Some people like infoboxes, some people don't like infoboxes, and in this project, reasonable people may differ, and the solution may well be to split the baby and let each faction focus on the articles they care about the most, with rational and respectfulhey get together and put everything to rightsdiscussion on the few where a clear lead editor is difficult to determine. Montanabw (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, whatever your rationale for hatting the above, I agree with your conclusions. The ownership issue highlighted by Alakzi transcends however the petty issue of infoboxes. The true issue is whether a vigilante group knows better than all other editors and owns the soul of WP as a consequence of its unique enlightenment. The fact that they have a leader in partial exile adds to the romance and excitement of their mission. They are the gumbie cats of Wikipedia: they may be (for the most part) charming and lovable, but when (they hope) the rest of the world is asleep, they gather together to put everything to rights (as they see it). And then some of them are not slow to extend claws to to those who beg to differ.-- Smerus ( talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Never have I been so glad to be away for a month with limited internet access. What an unedifying spectacle, I find on my return . Virtually a re-run of 2013 when editors on both sides of this issue nearly brought a highly productive and previously enjoyable project to its knees. When infobox opera was developed the consensus was that it is available as an option and that whether or not to include it and how much of it to include should be discussed on individual article talk pages if anyone objects. This project talk page is for planning collaborations, seeking help with sourcing and fact-checking, improving and finding good images, celebrating Rossini's birthday etc. It is not the place to
I'm going to close this discussion. Can I ask you all to please not re-open it. It's quite clear that at the moment a few editors have fairly entrenched positions on this issue. This is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. You may find it inconvenient to slug it out article-by-article but that's the way it is too. Relentless and personalised attempts to continue rehashing this general issue here are utterly sterile and destructive. I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes. But that is neither here nor there. The world is not going to come to an end if some articles do not have them and vice versa. So...
Voceditenore ( talk) 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
A useful consequence of the above farrago has been that inspection reveals many of the Wagner opera articles to be of mediocre or even poor quality. I am currently looking at Siegfried and anyone else who wishes to improve there is welcome. User: Adam Cuerden is kindly assisting on the images.-- Smerus ( talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Un ballo in maschera,
I Lombardi,
Giovanna d'Arco,
Les Troyens,
La Prise de Troie,
Les Troyens à Carthage is are now a featured pictures. The images for
Rigoletto,
I Lombardi alla prima crociata,
Giovanna d'Arco, and
Les Troyens [all passed], are up at
featured picture candidates, but - probably owing to it being the time university students have their final exams, at a guess - participation at featured pictures is in the middle of a lull, and, with the exception of the three Les Troyens images and I Lombardi, they may not reach quorum and thus have to be renominated later.
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 20:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Update: Problem seems to have passed; only Rigoletto failed to reach quorum.
Adam Cuerden (
talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Also featured: File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg and File:Giuseppe Verdi, La traviata title page - Restoration.jpg. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Giuseppe_Verdi,_Rigoletto,_Vocal_score_illustration_by_Roberto_Focosi_-_Restoration.jpg as well. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) File:Strauss, Richard - Ariadne auf Naxos - Restoration.jpg which I think is the first modernist opera with a featured picture (or, at least, one specific to it). Adam Cuerden ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to stop listing. They're coming in rather fast, and I'm marking them up above with stars. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone has created Nadine Koutcher (the winner) today. It's a two-sentence stub that could use... er... considerable expansion. I swapped out the ever-ghastly {{ infobox Musical artist}} for the more tasteful {{ Infobox person}}. I've created a stub which also needs expansion for Jongmin Park, who won the Song Prize.
Meanwhile, it appears that an article has existed since 2012 for the chap who won the Dame Joan Sutherland Audience Prize, but it's currently got a Mongolian-style title, Enkhbatyn Amartüvshin (patronymic first). Not sure how appropriate that is. Anyhow, I've created a redirect for the name he's known by in European opera houses, Amartuvshin Enkhbat. Maybe should be the other way 'round?
I had rather fancied Oleksiy Palchykov, a Ukranian tenor who already has a significant career and won the first heat, but I gather he wasn't loud enough. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
With a view to getting Giuseppe Verdi up to GA (eventually), I've now weeded out and reorganized many of the images in the article, and begun copyediting. But in the process it looks to me like the article needs very substantial rewriting. It is full of a lot of clutter detail about individual operas that really belong in the opera articles rather than the biography article. And there is very little about influence, etc. (or indeed provenance - what V took over from Grand Opera, Rossini, etc. etc.). In the process V's actual life seems to me difficult to extrapolate for the general reader. But before I go much further I would appreciate some other opinions. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 19:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've flushed out a number of pix, and relocated details on the operas to a separate section. This has revealed that the biography section was extremely uneven, containing a lot of inconsequential detail and unenlightening quotes from various writers; many passages were (and are) based on one particular biographer, with much space given to rumour and suppositions. I've begun to copyedit the existing text, inadequate though it is. For example, there is almost nothing on the final 20 years of Verdi's life. I would hope eventually to achieve a complete rewrite, based on four areas - biography, music, reception and legacy - which I have found to be appropriate and acceptable in other GAs on which I have worked. But this is going to take quite a while.-- Smerus ( talk) 07:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On articles that list roles by voice type, the only source cited is Guide to Operatic Roles and Arias, and there are very few roles from contemporary opera listed. Is there a good source for classifying roles from more contemporary opera composers like Philip Glass, Harrison Birtwistle or Kaija Saariaho? SpiritedMichelle ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I've now created a full(ish) version of the article but am feeling brain-dead. Please look and comment - is it now appropriate to go for peer review - or even for GA review?-- Smerus ( talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Smerus: Okay, here's the referencing errors:
I can't fix any of these without access to the sources to check the references - it's not clear, and we don't want to get this fixed wrong. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
For those who are interested, Giuseppe Verdi is now up for GA - anyone is welcome to start the review. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 10:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Now GA.-- Smerus ( talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Just noticed we don't have an article on the Arundel Festival which does produce opera among other arts. I'm not from the UK and know nothing about it. Anyone care to take a crack at creating an article? 4meter4 ( talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judit Kutasi. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just came across a new poorly conceived article which I have been cleaning up. I am having a bit of trouble finding references for tenor Attila B. Kiss (often given as Atilla Kiss B.; Opera magazine specifically says it should be Atilla B. Kiss) which was recently created by another editor with no references. He has won two notable prizes (although there are no sources for this), so notability is probably not an issue. That said, everything I've come across so far other than one mention in a review in Opera seems to be press releases from the opera houses which include his bio most likely written by his agent. Another issue I've come across is when the article was created the author describes him as Hungarian even though he was born in Romania, trained in Romania, and made his professional debut in Romania (according to the Hungarian wikipedia which entirely unreferenced). He has been working primarily at the Hungarian State Opera House in recent years and he is from a part of Romania that used to be part of Hungary, so I suppose its possible that he became a Hungarian citizen and that he may be of Hungarian ethnic descent. For the time being I changed the article to Romanian until a source can prove otherwise. Any help sourcing or expanding this stub would be helpful. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Although VOICExperience Foundation is not the worst COI creation I've ever seen, it does need some help. At least the author took the time to add some good references to the article, even if the tone is somewhat unencyclopedic. It needs categories and cleanup. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 05:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added a column for composer gender to the new table of Frequently performed opera composers despite my incurable gender-blindness, and feeling that gender is given too much weight in general. I'm with Thea Musgrave on this one ("Thea Musgrave is frequently interviewed and questioned about being a "woman" composer, to which she has replied; "Yes, I am a woman; and I am a composer. But rarely at the same time." (her website, at some time in the past)). That said, composers of the female gender are a very high-profile topic at the moment, and some readers may wish to know how they fare in numbers and rankings compared with the composers of the male gender. Scarabocchio ( talk) 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. I just noticed that The Taming of the Shrew (opera) actually links to a section on opera adaptations in the wikipedia article about the play. There are many operas that have been based on Shakespear's The Taming of the Shrew, most of which have no articles on wikipedia. I would suggest that we create articles on the operas mentioned in the article on the play. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"John Kendrick Bangs' Katherine: A Travesty (1888) is a Gilbert and Sullivan-style parody operetta which premiered in the Metropolitan Opera" - why am I suspicious of that "Gilbert and Sullivan-style" description? Burlesques and travesties long predate Gilbert, indeed, he got his start doing them. On the other hand, H.M.S. Pinafore madness is documented in America at around that time, so it's not an impossible influence... Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)