![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
"Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) is part of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other projects..." (my emphasis). So says a banner placed on the Pelléas Talk page by the above Bot. I'm putting a polite note on the WP:CM talk page. -- GuillaumeTell 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
How can we delete Category:English-language operetta? Nothing is in it. -- Ssilvers 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, add an "s" at the end: Category:English-language operettas. -- Ssilvers 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed that Category:Comic operas covers these? -- Ssilvers 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think operettas and English Comic operas are both subcategories of comic opera. -- Ssilvers 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Gulp! There are an awful lot of operettas that aren't very comic.
Anyway, the category English-language operettas was created today, by User:Piniricc65, so it seems a bit premature to put it up for deletion just yet.
However, I'm not very clear about what it might contain. One important matter is that (as I understand it) the term "operetta" is widely used in the USA for works by Gilbert and Sullivan, whereas G&S actually designated them "comic operas", and that's how they are thought of in Britain. As I say from time to time, the best way of allocating genre categories to operas is to use the terms that were used by their creators.
Who's going to volunteer to talk about this to Piniricc65? I've got work to do on Gilbert Duprez and a whole bunch of Verdi operas. -- GuillaumeTell 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See Category talk:English-language operettas. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
Whilst populating Category:Operas by Michael Tippett fully, I noticed that of the five operas, one is in the both Category:Operas and the by year subcategory, two are in just the year category and two are in neither. Have we reached a consensus or are we stil arg^h^h^h discussing the subject vigorously? -- Peter cohen 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi from someone at Composers -- thanks for mentioning the possible bot tagging there. Though my thoughts on the matter are rather mild (and possibly irrelevant), I think that bot tagging of projects is not a good idea (by any project, Opera or otherwise). I guess I see it as a sort of marking of territory before the humans arrive. I've written articles on various people and within a hour or completing the article, biobot (or whatever it's called) tags the talk page as part of WP:BIO, "Please coordinate with us to improve this page!" or something like that, and I must say it's a bit of a turn off toward contributing. Bot tagging of pages seems an easy way for projects to start biting off more than they can chew: if a person needs to make the edit, have the page added to a watchlist, etc., then project limits tend to be more restricted (and thus useful). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
All our people pages have already been trawled by the three Biography Project bots and have been (or will be marked up) for the attention of the Musician Work Group (a k a Musicians Project), a sub-project of the Biography Project, for assessment, infoboxes etc. (The Musicians Project is a popular music project). This can be seen, for example on Talk:Giuseppe Verdi, look at the categories at the foot of the page.
I am in favour of using a bot to put opera banners on all our pages in order to retain influence over the editing of the articles. If we use a bot to go through the pages, we will know what has been created so far, and be able to monitor them. (We now have about 2,500 to 3,500 articles in total so hand bannering is not really practical at this stage of our development.)
If the Opera Project is to continue I think it is inevitable that we will have to do assessments (much as I dislike the idea) and bannering is the first step in that direction. The alternative is to allow the Biography Project or whoever to dumb down the articles to a WP norm (as the Japanese say, "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down") - or simply to quit and go and work on a closed wiki devoted solely to opera.
I also think there's a good case for redesigning our banner so it is smaller and less obtrusive. -- Kleinzach 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've recently created two articles on historic opera houses in Milan - the Teatro Dal Verme and the Teatro Lirico. Neither of them are active as opera houses today, and in fact, the Teatro Lirico is closed at the moment, but each of them saw several notable opera premieres and stage debuts in their heyday and are mentioned in various Wikpedia articles on singers, composers, and operas. I've put Opera Project banners on them, but please remove them if you think they're inappropriate. Also, the Teatro Lirico is a bit problematic in that it was called the Teatro alla Canobbiana from 1779 until 1894 when Sonzogno took it over. I've made a redirect page from the Teatro alla Canobbiana to the Teatro Lirico page where both names are mentioned. Voceditenore 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I got out my programme for Der Prinz von Homburg earlier and tinkered with the article. I decided it no longer merited being a stub and removed the status, but was I meant to ask for permission or something? -- Peter cohen 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just created and am working on The Silver Tassie. If you look at the cast list, it calls for heroic baritone and high soprano. Are these voice types we theoretically intend to create articles for? Or should I remove the square brackets?
I don't think we need more voice category articles. I think you can say coloratura soprano if that's what she is, or just lyric soprano, dramatic baritone, or lyric tenor, etc. -- Ssilvers 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Today a new editor made a large number of edits to articles to add information about Light Opera Works recordings/translations of operettas and its conductor Philip Kraus. It's nice to have new information, but almost all of the edits state that these recordings/translations are by far the best, have been adopted as the English-language standard, remedy the appaling state of things prior to their appearance, etc. Can someone take a look at the edits and, if you agree, say something diplomatic at User Talk:Paxart? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I used the friendly template that you suggested. I have tried to remove the commercial links and trim down some of the POV. Clearly, he is very bitter about his departure from the Chicago company in 1999. They seem to have wiped all mention of his name from their website, and he retaliated by removing all the information from their Wikipedia article that discussed matters after 1999. If he responds well to the edits, he could become a valuable contributor. Please do make any further edits necessary. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a link in Domingo's article to go to List of recordings by Plácido Domingo. I like to know your opinion especially about the album cover. Are we allowed to use them? Like in this case, the article is about Domingo’s recordings – audio CD/DVD etc – so I think the usage of “album covers” suit the article, what do you guys think? I will add list of his recorded operas and compilation albums soon. I really like that old man :)) - Jay 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that this article isn't to be deleted, what is to be done? Two possibilities spring to mind:
There was also a suggestion that the article should be renamed. I rather favour this, whichever of the above options are followed, as there are at least two articles not about Verdi's opera project that currently link to it. -- GuillaumeTell 21:33, 25 May 2007 (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 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
"Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) is part of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other projects..." (my emphasis). So says a banner placed on the Pelléas Talk page by the above Bot. I'm putting a polite note on the WP:CM talk page. -- GuillaumeTell 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
How can we delete Category:English-language operetta? Nothing is in it. -- Ssilvers 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, add an "s" at the end: Category:English-language operettas. -- Ssilvers 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed that Category:Comic operas covers these? -- Ssilvers 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think operettas and English Comic operas are both subcategories of comic opera. -- Ssilvers 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Gulp! There are an awful lot of operettas that aren't very comic.
Anyway, the category English-language operettas was created today, by User:Piniricc65, so it seems a bit premature to put it up for deletion just yet.
However, I'm not very clear about what it might contain. One important matter is that (as I understand it) the term "operetta" is widely used in the USA for works by Gilbert and Sullivan, whereas G&S actually designated them "comic operas", and that's how they are thought of in Britain. As I say from time to time, the best way of allocating genre categories to operas is to use the terms that were used by their creators.
Who's going to volunteer to talk about this to Piniricc65? I've got work to do on Gilbert Duprez and a whole bunch of Verdi operas. -- GuillaumeTell 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See Category talk:English-language operettas. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs)
Whilst populating Category:Operas by Michael Tippett fully, I noticed that of the five operas, one is in the both Category:Operas and the by year subcategory, two are in just the year category and two are in neither. Have we reached a consensus or are we stil arg^h^h^h discussing the subject vigorously? -- Peter cohen 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi from someone at Composers -- thanks for mentioning the possible bot tagging there. Though my thoughts on the matter are rather mild (and possibly irrelevant), I think that bot tagging of projects is not a good idea (by any project, Opera or otherwise). I guess I see it as a sort of marking of territory before the humans arrive. I've written articles on various people and within a hour or completing the article, biobot (or whatever it's called) tags the talk page as part of WP:BIO, "Please coordinate with us to improve this page!" or something like that, and I must say it's a bit of a turn off toward contributing. Bot tagging of pages seems an easy way for projects to start biting off more than they can chew: if a person needs to make the edit, have the page added to a watchlist, etc., then project limits tend to be more restricted (and thus useful). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
All our people pages have already been trawled by the three Biography Project bots and have been (or will be marked up) for the attention of the Musician Work Group (a k a Musicians Project), a sub-project of the Biography Project, for assessment, infoboxes etc. (The Musicians Project is a popular music project). This can be seen, for example on Talk:Giuseppe Verdi, look at the categories at the foot of the page.
I am in favour of using a bot to put opera banners on all our pages in order to retain influence over the editing of the articles. If we use a bot to go through the pages, we will know what has been created so far, and be able to monitor them. (We now have about 2,500 to 3,500 articles in total so hand bannering is not really practical at this stage of our development.)
If the Opera Project is to continue I think it is inevitable that we will have to do assessments (much as I dislike the idea) and bannering is the first step in that direction. The alternative is to allow the Biography Project or whoever to dumb down the articles to a WP norm (as the Japanese say, "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down") - or simply to quit and go and work on a closed wiki devoted solely to opera.
I also think there's a good case for redesigning our banner so it is smaller and less obtrusive. -- Kleinzach 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've recently created two articles on historic opera houses in Milan - the Teatro Dal Verme and the Teatro Lirico. Neither of them are active as opera houses today, and in fact, the Teatro Lirico is closed at the moment, but each of them saw several notable opera premieres and stage debuts in their heyday and are mentioned in various Wikpedia articles on singers, composers, and operas. I've put Opera Project banners on them, but please remove them if you think they're inappropriate. Also, the Teatro Lirico is a bit problematic in that it was called the Teatro alla Canobbiana from 1779 until 1894 when Sonzogno took it over. I've made a redirect page from the Teatro alla Canobbiana to the Teatro Lirico page where both names are mentioned. Voceditenore 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I got out my programme for Der Prinz von Homburg earlier and tinkered with the article. I decided it no longer merited being a stub and removed the status, but was I meant to ask for permission or something? -- Peter cohen 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I've just created and am working on The Silver Tassie. If you look at the cast list, it calls for heroic baritone and high soprano. Are these voice types we theoretically intend to create articles for? Or should I remove the square brackets?
I don't think we need more voice category articles. I think you can say coloratura soprano if that's what she is, or just lyric soprano, dramatic baritone, or lyric tenor, etc. -- Ssilvers 21:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Today a new editor made a large number of edits to articles to add information about Light Opera Works recordings/translations of operettas and its conductor Philip Kraus. It's nice to have new information, but almost all of the edits state that these recordings/translations are by far the best, have been adopted as the English-language standard, remedy the appaling state of things prior to their appearance, etc. Can someone take a look at the edits and, if you agree, say something diplomatic at User Talk:Paxart? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I used the friendly template that you suggested. I have tried to remove the commercial links and trim down some of the POV. Clearly, he is very bitter about his departure from the Chicago company in 1999. They seem to have wiped all mention of his name from their website, and he retaliated by removing all the information from their Wikipedia article that discussed matters after 1999. If he responds well to the edits, he could become a valuable contributor. Please do make any further edits necessary. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a link in Domingo's article to go to List of recordings by Plácido Domingo. I like to know your opinion especially about the album cover. Are we allowed to use them? Like in this case, the article is about Domingo’s recordings – audio CD/DVD etc – so I think the usage of “album covers” suit the article, what do you guys think? I will add list of his recorded operas and compilation albums soon. I really like that old man :)) - Jay 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that this article isn't to be deleted, what is to be done? Two possibilities spring to mind:
There was also a suggestion that the article should be renamed. I rather favour this, whichever of the above options are followed, as there are at least two articles not about Verdi's opera project that currently link to it. -- GuillaumeTell 21:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)