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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
This is an opera, and should be categorized as such. It is published as an opera in Stein's Last Operas and Plays, is commonly referred to as an opera in all the critical literature (see article for a start), and I remind you of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word 'opera':
It has also been produced as such, not least by Robert Wilson at the Edinburgh Festival. DionysosProteus 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you consult a dictionary for the definition of the word 'opera' in the English language, and your puzzlement may dissipate. It is used to refer both to a libretto and to a musicial score. This is because 'opera' is an inherently multi-medial art form, and by definition has more than one author. Stein, in every meaningful sense of the term, wrote operas. DionysosProteus 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
DionysosProteus's case is based on a single phrase in a single dictionary. The OED was not personally transmitted to us by God, and like other books it contains mistakes, misphrases and misleading passages. It's an important work but not an authority on opera and it doesn't trump all the standard reference books on the subject (Grove, Oxford, Viking etc.).
Looking again at the article, I think what the OED editor meant to do was to give an "also by extension its constituent parts" style of definition. In other words "Opera is XYZ with PQR and DEG, and by extension the word can refer to the libretto or score of the same title of which they are a part" (for example, "Where were you last night, Herr von Hofmannsthal?". "I was working on the new opera.") -- Kleinzach 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've recommended this category for renaming to Category:Libretti by Gertrude Stein. Cfd is here. -- Kleinzach 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a clear (and hitherto uncontroversial) practice on disambiguating opera titles, noted on the project page here: if the opera has a unique name no disamabiguation is needed and the article title is the same as the opera.
Sparafucil evidently disagrees with this practice, insisting that Mathis der Maler be entitled Mathis der Maler (opera) even though there isn't another article called Mathis der Maler. Can he explain?
As always, reforming or improving the system is admirable providing we look at the whole picture and make any necessary changes right across the board (which in the case of opera articles means approx. 1,100 articles plus about 600 red links in The opera corpus). -- Kleinzach 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I left my explaination on the article's talk page, thinking I had pointed Kleinzach there (it might be good to put in a link to this discussion). My revert was simply on the principal of if it isnt broke, dont fix it (and I'm happy enough with the present pointer). If it actually is a WP policy that there should always remain one article without a disambiguating description, I stand corrected!
On my userpage we were discussing Miss Julie. The article on the play is presently doubling as a disamb. page, and following the split Julie (opera) was (understandably) incorrectly linked to Miss Julie (opera), neither to be confused with Miss Julie (Alwyn) or the Opera Corpus' Julie (operetta) (nothing to do with Strindberg, I trust?). It seems to me we might wish to favor (composer) in such cases and clarify the naming policy thus:
To avoid ambiguity the word opera, or the name of the composer, are added to the title in parentheses. The disambiguation (opera) may be used to distinguish an opera from a name or work in another medium ( Falstaff (opera)) and retained when creating another opera article if the first is famous enough to be easily guessed ( Macbeth (opera), Macbeth (Sciarrino)), but it is acceptable to use (composer) instead ( Isis (Lully)). Likewise Otello need not be modified to distinguish it from Otello (Rossini), but in closer calls it is usually clearer to use (composer) ( Montezuma (Graun), Montezuma (Sessions), or Emperor Norton (Mollicone), Emperor Norton (Rosen), Emperor Norton (Aird), Emperor Norton (Axelrod)).
Sparafucil 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Practice? We have two practices, Isis (Lully) and Miss Julie (opera), both consistent with the wording on the project page. If my favoring the former is so offensive, you might try a rewrite yourself instead of insisting it's perfectly clear already. It is pretty sad that neither of us can let go of this, isnt it? ;-)
The redirect looks good. It's worth noting that there is a 'Vivaldi Montezuma'; in the early 90's when the libretto was the only known source a parodistic reconstruction was made under that title, and I've left a note on the Montezuma page. It ought to be mentioned in Motezuma as well once someone masters the sources. Didn't Grove have a Montezuma (Vivaldi) article? Sparafucil 06:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that is meant as a reasonable plea and not an accusation; as we know my changes to the corpus have been confined to changing red (opera) links to blue (Lully) links to existing articles. My proposal is just that we have a consistent way of naming new articles, the criterion being whether (opera) leaves room for wrong guesses. Sparafucil 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me remind you again of the large numbers involved here - thousands of articles. The reason for having a systemmatic approach (as explained on the Project page) is to avoid errors. From time to time, articles are duplicated (started under different titles) but because of categories and wikilinks, we usually catch them quite early on. (See the archives for examples.)
If The opera corpus is used as a point of departure for 'needed' article titles (as for example with 'Composer of the Month') any problems will be obviated and the list itself will be accurate. If you ignore the opera corpus and create your own article titles, or make WP:POINT attacks (e.g. Mathis der Maler), then we will have anomalies that are tedious to correct.
If you are still unhappy about this - for whatever reason - I suggest you make a clear (yes, clear) and fully-detailed proposal here (under a new topic), explaining how any change in practice would be implemented overall. I will be arguing against making any changes, not because the present system is perfect (the software isn't - so neither are titles or categories), but because it simply isn't worth the considerable effort necessary to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it? - -- Kleinzach 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't usually have seperate articles for libretti. Obviously they are normally covered by articles on the individual operas to which they were set. However the libretti of Metastasio are exceptional because of the large number of settings (sometimes thirty, forty or fifty of them). At the moment there appear to be four of them: Artaserse, Demofoonte, L'Olimpiade, Didone abbandonata.
IMO the Metastasio articles are useful, but at the moment they are haphazardly categorized and not very accessible. Should we create a new category for them, called Category: Opera libretti ? Is this a good idea or do we, perhaps, need a different approach? -- Kleinzach 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone has put this article up (for merging with Boris Godunov) here. -- Kleinzach 10:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Kleinzach enquired about some sources I had listed here. They're now buried in the archives somewhere, but I've re-printed and expanded them on my sandbox page. Feel free to add them (or the link to my sandbox) to the Project Page, if you think they'd be useful. Best, Voceditenore 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In my peregrinations amongst the unreferenced singer articles cited in the previous section, I have some doubts about these two...
Best, Voceditenore 15:48, 30 August 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
This is an opera, and should be categorized as such. It is published as an opera in Stein's Last Operas and Plays, is commonly referred to as an opera in all the critical literature (see article for a start), and I remind you of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word 'opera':
It has also been produced as such, not least by Robert Wilson at the Edinburgh Festival. DionysosProteus 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you consult a dictionary for the definition of the word 'opera' in the English language, and your puzzlement may dissipate. It is used to refer both to a libretto and to a musicial score. This is because 'opera' is an inherently multi-medial art form, and by definition has more than one author. Stein, in every meaningful sense of the term, wrote operas. DionysosProteus 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
DionysosProteus's case is based on a single phrase in a single dictionary. The OED was not personally transmitted to us by God, and like other books it contains mistakes, misphrases and misleading passages. It's an important work but not an authority on opera and it doesn't trump all the standard reference books on the subject (Grove, Oxford, Viking etc.).
Looking again at the article, I think what the OED editor meant to do was to give an "also by extension its constituent parts" style of definition. In other words "Opera is XYZ with PQR and DEG, and by extension the word can refer to the libretto or score of the same title of which they are a part" (for example, "Where were you last night, Herr von Hofmannsthal?". "I was working on the new opera.") -- Kleinzach 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've recommended this category for renaming to Category:Libretti by Gertrude Stein. Cfd is here. -- Kleinzach 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a clear (and hitherto uncontroversial) practice on disambiguating opera titles, noted on the project page here: if the opera has a unique name no disamabiguation is needed and the article title is the same as the opera.
Sparafucil evidently disagrees with this practice, insisting that Mathis der Maler be entitled Mathis der Maler (opera) even though there isn't another article called Mathis der Maler. Can he explain?
As always, reforming or improving the system is admirable providing we look at the whole picture and make any necessary changes right across the board (which in the case of opera articles means approx. 1,100 articles plus about 600 red links in The opera corpus). -- Kleinzach 00:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I left my explaination on the article's talk page, thinking I had pointed Kleinzach there (it might be good to put in a link to this discussion). My revert was simply on the principal of if it isnt broke, dont fix it (and I'm happy enough with the present pointer). If it actually is a WP policy that there should always remain one article without a disambiguating description, I stand corrected!
On my userpage we were discussing Miss Julie. The article on the play is presently doubling as a disamb. page, and following the split Julie (opera) was (understandably) incorrectly linked to Miss Julie (opera), neither to be confused with Miss Julie (Alwyn) or the Opera Corpus' Julie (operetta) (nothing to do with Strindberg, I trust?). It seems to me we might wish to favor (composer) in such cases and clarify the naming policy thus:
To avoid ambiguity the word opera, or the name of the composer, are added to the title in parentheses. The disambiguation (opera) may be used to distinguish an opera from a name or work in another medium ( Falstaff (opera)) and retained when creating another opera article if the first is famous enough to be easily guessed ( Macbeth (opera), Macbeth (Sciarrino)), but it is acceptable to use (composer) instead ( Isis (Lully)). Likewise Otello need not be modified to distinguish it from Otello (Rossini), but in closer calls it is usually clearer to use (composer) ( Montezuma (Graun), Montezuma (Sessions), or Emperor Norton (Mollicone), Emperor Norton (Rosen), Emperor Norton (Aird), Emperor Norton (Axelrod)).
Sparafucil 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Practice? We have two practices, Isis (Lully) and Miss Julie (opera), both consistent with the wording on the project page. If my favoring the former is so offensive, you might try a rewrite yourself instead of insisting it's perfectly clear already. It is pretty sad that neither of us can let go of this, isnt it? ;-)
The redirect looks good. It's worth noting that there is a 'Vivaldi Montezuma'; in the early 90's when the libretto was the only known source a parodistic reconstruction was made under that title, and I've left a note on the Montezuma page. It ought to be mentioned in Motezuma as well once someone masters the sources. Didn't Grove have a Montezuma (Vivaldi) article? Sparafucil 06:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that is meant as a reasonable plea and not an accusation; as we know my changes to the corpus have been confined to changing red (opera) links to blue (Lully) links to existing articles. My proposal is just that we have a consistent way of naming new articles, the criterion being whether (opera) leaves room for wrong guesses. Sparafucil 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me remind you again of the large numbers involved here - thousands of articles. The reason for having a systemmatic approach (as explained on the Project page) is to avoid errors. From time to time, articles are duplicated (started under different titles) but because of categories and wikilinks, we usually catch them quite early on. (See the archives for examples.)
If The opera corpus is used as a point of departure for 'needed' article titles (as for example with 'Composer of the Month') any problems will be obviated and the list itself will be accurate. If you ignore the opera corpus and create your own article titles, or make WP:POINT attacks (e.g. Mathis der Maler), then we will have anomalies that are tedious to correct.
If you are still unhappy about this - for whatever reason - I suggest you make a clear (yes, clear) and fully-detailed proposal here (under a new topic), explaining how any change in practice would be implemented overall. I will be arguing against making any changes, not because the present system is perfect (the software isn't - so neither are titles or categories), but because it simply isn't worth the considerable effort necessary to change it. If it ain't broke, why fix it? - -- Kleinzach 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't usually have seperate articles for libretti. Obviously they are normally covered by articles on the individual operas to which they were set. However the libretti of Metastasio are exceptional because of the large number of settings (sometimes thirty, forty or fifty of them). At the moment there appear to be four of them: Artaserse, Demofoonte, L'Olimpiade, Didone abbandonata.
IMO the Metastasio articles are useful, but at the moment they are haphazardly categorized and not very accessible. Should we create a new category for them, called Category: Opera libretti ? Is this a good idea or do we, perhaps, need a different approach? -- Kleinzach 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone has put this article up (for merging with Boris Godunov) here. -- Kleinzach 10:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Kleinzach enquired about some sources I had listed here. They're now buried in the archives somewhere, but I've re-printed and expanded them on my sandbox page. Feel free to add them (or the link to my sandbox) to the Project Page, if you think they'd be useful. Best, Voceditenore 10:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
In my peregrinations amongst the unreferenced singer articles cited in the previous section, I have some doubts about these two...
Best, Voceditenore 15:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)