![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Following the success of the Gilbert and Sullivan Project we now have another 'descendant' - the Richard Wagner Project. IMO having special projects for the more developed areas of opera coverage works well, enabling higher standards etc. Congratulations to Dogbertd for setting this up. -- Kleinzach 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Peter Cohen has raised this subject in relation to the proposed bot run. Are we ready to bite the bullet on this and introduce some kind of system, albeit very slowly? Like most of us I have been reluctant to get involved, although I remember GuillaumeTell did some preparatory work. I've now come round to regarding assessements as a necessary evil, the only way to establish the legitimacy of the project in WP as a whole (and perhaps prevent it being sliced up in bot and AWB raids). (The reason given for the Biography Project bots marking up opera project pages was because the Opera Project didn't do ratings.) So, yay or nay? Comments? -- Kleinzach 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at how assessments work at WP:G&S. I think it is more user-friendly than the way they do it at the Bio project or some other projects. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fireplace. The assessment system up to B level is informal. It's just a guide to say that the article doesn't have much in it (stub); or it has a reasonable beginning of the key sections, but they might not be very fleshed out, or else it might need clean-up/referencing, etc. (start); or the article is pretty good: it's got all the main sections with a reasonable amount of content and referencing: It could have a more complete background or musical analysis section and more references, but the characters/synopsis/musical numbers sections are pretty complete, and there is reasonable information about background/productions/recordings, etc. (B-class). After B-class, however, an article needs a formal review to be designated GA, A or FA. These processes are fairly well described. Why create a system that is different from all other projects on Wikipedia? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that every article is destined to be FA at the end of time. There is nothing wrong with a good B-class article (and B-class covers a lot of territory). For instance, there could be a perfectly nice-looking article about a performer, say, Marion Hood, about whom little is known. The article should give all the available information, be well-written and be nicely formatted, but even after it has been taken as far as it can go (I'm not saying that this one could not use some more work), it would still be relatively short, missing some information about her life and career that we may never unearth, and have relatively few references, unless some researcher ever does a good book about her. So, it may never get beyond B-class. That's OK. Someone looking her up in Wikipedia will get a good summary of the singer. The point of the assessment is just to give a general idea of the relative state polish and completeness of articles (in broad terms). Then, if you are a person who likes to expand stubs, it is easy to find them. On the other hand, if you are a person who likes to take an article that has a pretty good start and make it into a more complete B-class article, it will be easy to see which opera project articles fall into this category. Simple; no pressure! If you look at the talk page assessments for the WP:G&S articles, you'll see that Marc and I (mostly) have given them assessments, using a template that is very easy to change, and when I upgrade an article, I just upgrade the assessment. Then I can get a birds' eye view of which articles are still "stubs" or "starts" in the project and concentrate on getting those up to B-class (which is what I have been trying to do, in general). Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose we accept SatyrTN's offer to set the bot to (quote) "look at an article and tell if it has a "This article is a stub" tag in the article", otherwise to "leave the rating alone, basically leaving "stubs" tagged and the rest "unassessed"." -- Kleinzach 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This has been tagged as original research with an implied threat of deletion (Afd), see Talk:List_of_important_opera_companies#Original_research. The tagger objected to the limit of 60 enties in the introduction (which I have removed) and the selection criteria. He/she has agreed that the OR tag can be removed if the word 'important' is removed from the title and the list becomes inclusive. I am inclined to do this to save a good article, but do other people agree? -- Kleinzach 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately List of opera companies exists as a redirect. Does someone know how to move the page? An admin perhaps? -- Kleinzach 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The IMSLP (which works exactly like WP) has an opera section. I don't know whether anybody else is interested? I've joined with my WP handle. -- Kleinzach 02:52, 1 June 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 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Following the success of the Gilbert and Sullivan Project we now have another 'descendant' - the Richard Wagner Project. IMO having special projects for the more developed areas of opera coverage works well, enabling higher standards etc. Congratulations to Dogbertd for setting this up. -- Kleinzach 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Peter Cohen has raised this subject in relation to the proposed bot run. Are we ready to bite the bullet on this and introduce some kind of system, albeit very slowly? Like most of us I have been reluctant to get involved, although I remember GuillaumeTell did some preparatory work. I've now come round to regarding assessements as a necessary evil, the only way to establish the legitimacy of the project in WP as a whole (and perhaps prevent it being sliced up in bot and AWB raids). (The reason given for the Biography Project bots marking up opera project pages was because the Opera Project didn't do ratings.) So, yay or nay? Comments? -- Kleinzach 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at how assessments work at WP:G&S. I think it is more user-friendly than the way they do it at the Bio project or some other projects. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fireplace. The assessment system up to B level is informal. It's just a guide to say that the article doesn't have much in it (stub); or it has a reasonable beginning of the key sections, but they might not be very fleshed out, or else it might need clean-up/referencing, etc. (start); or the article is pretty good: it's got all the main sections with a reasonable amount of content and referencing: It could have a more complete background or musical analysis section and more references, but the characters/synopsis/musical numbers sections are pretty complete, and there is reasonable information about background/productions/recordings, etc. (B-class). After B-class, however, an article needs a formal review to be designated GA, A or FA. These processes are fairly well described. Why create a system that is different from all other projects on Wikipedia? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that every article is destined to be FA at the end of time. There is nothing wrong with a good B-class article (and B-class covers a lot of territory). For instance, there could be a perfectly nice-looking article about a performer, say, Marion Hood, about whom little is known. The article should give all the available information, be well-written and be nicely formatted, but even after it has been taken as far as it can go (I'm not saying that this one could not use some more work), it would still be relatively short, missing some information about her life and career that we may never unearth, and have relatively few references, unless some researcher ever does a good book about her. So, it may never get beyond B-class. That's OK. Someone looking her up in Wikipedia will get a good summary of the singer. The point of the assessment is just to give a general idea of the relative state polish and completeness of articles (in broad terms). Then, if you are a person who likes to expand stubs, it is easy to find them. On the other hand, if you are a person who likes to take an article that has a pretty good start and make it into a more complete B-class article, it will be easy to see which opera project articles fall into this category. Simple; no pressure! If you look at the talk page assessments for the WP:G&S articles, you'll see that Marc and I (mostly) have given them assessments, using a template that is very easy to change, and when I upgrade an article, I just upgrade the assessment. Then I can get a birds' eye view of which articles are still "stubs" or "starts" in the project and concentrate on getting those up to B-class (which is what I have been trying to do, in general). Best regards, -- Ssilvers 02:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose we accept SatyrTN's offer to set the bot to (quote) "look at an article and tell if it has a "This article is a stub" tag in the article", otherwise to "leave the rating alone, basically leaving "stubs" tagged and the rest "unassessed"." -- Kleinzach 00:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This has been tagged as original research with an implied threat of deletion (Afd), see Talk:List_of_important_opera_companies#Original_research. The tagger objected to the limit of 60 enties in the introduction (which I have removed) and the selection criteria. He/she has agreed that the OR tag can be removed if the word 'important' is removed from the title and the list becomes inclusive. I am inclined to do this to save a good article, but do other people agree? -- Kleinzach 00:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately List of opera companies exists as a redirect. Does someone know how to move the page? An admin perhaps? -- Kleinzach 02:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The IMSLP (which works exactly like WP) has an opera section. I don't know whether anybody else is interested? I've joined with my WP handle. -- Kleinzach 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)