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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
In that case how about researching English works? There are many listed in The opera corpus. You'll find very few of them are illustrated. Also many need articles and even biographies (e.g. Edward Loder). Most opera project participants are interested in French, Italian and German works so it would be great if you could take over some of the English ones. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[Reset indent] I'm presuming we're ignoring the really big names like Purcell, Sullivan, Britten, Adams, etc.
Okay. Alfred Cellier was pretty important - moreso in opera than MacKenzie, anyway, but WP:G&S started work on him, and the coverage is... reasonable. Don't have all his operas, but have all the main ones and a good chunk of the minor. Frederic Clay largely collaborated with Gilbert for his major works, so file him under WP:G&S.
Edward Solomon ( The Nautch Girl, etc.) might be a very good choice. He's not very well covered as yet, but was undoubtedly important and popular.
However, there may be too many composers in the list. If we wanted to cut it down, I'd probably choose Arne, Wallace, Balfe, and Solomon. Vanished user talk 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be the male singers turn (December is 'New Music Divas'). Does anyone have any suggestions?
One that I thought might be useful (in preparation for February's 'Rossini Month') would be to have 3-5 male role creators in Rossini's operas (or ones that are/were particularly prominent Rossini singers). If there is any interest in this, I could put together some suggestions.
Another possibility, given that January is 'Gounod Month', would be French male singers of the mid to late 19th century. A quick glance at Gounod's operas throws up a lot of red links for the role creators. Best, Voceditenore 18:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to wrap this up, as I shall be off to deck the halls with boughs of holly soon. Can we narrow this down a bit? Otherwise it's a bit like a 'to do list', plus 10 singers is probably too many. I'd be inclined just to stick with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale or alternatively the Italian crowd ( Wladimiro Ganzarolli, Sesto Bruscantini, etc). Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Going once, going twice... Any objections to going with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale as per my comment above? If not I'll put them to the January SoM notice. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a stub at present, mainly from one source, but it's a start. Vanished user talk 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the English Wikipedia policy on fair use photos Wikipedia:Non-free content, and it appears that images which may still be in copyright, but are of dead people (and thus with no possibility of a free image being obtained) may still be used under 'fair use', provided a detailed description and 'Fair use rationale' is provided, and the other conditions for fair use are met, e.g. low resolution, previously published outside Wikipedia, figure is of historical importance, etc. Here's an example I just used for a portrait of Francesco Cilea. I'm wondering if the wording on the Opera Project page should be changed to:
Or, should we let sleeping dogs lie? Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this link connects to the Royal Danish Theatre and the article states that this is the name of the company. The web site of the theatre though says it houses the The Royal Danish Opera and that this is the name of the company. Anyone know the truth? Nrswanson ( talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Alas, a new editor (started editing 3 weeks ago), Mickey_gfss2007, has taken it upon himself to start adding infoboxes to opera singers' articles. I reverted his edits and explained with a link in the edit summary. But he's reverted them all back. I left a message on his talk page too. But I suspect he's rather impervious. Take a look at the one for José Carreras. Groan!!! A complete distortion of his career and inaccurate to boot. Plus an invitation for the Catalan nationalists to start edit-warring too. Voceditenore ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just written a reply to the latest barrage from one of the article's authors on its talk page, explaining the background to my initial edit, which I hope will calm things down a bit. I would strongly suggest that we just leave it for now. Heated discussions, accusations and counter-accusations, especially when they involve a relatively inexperienced editor, can be very counter-productive, and rightly or wrongly can reflect badly on the Opera Project as well. It's an isolated case, and the arguments for removal have been clearly laid out on the talk page as a permanent record. Fortunately, it appears that Mickey_gfss2007 who started it all (and has not participated on that article's talk page) has laid off further opera singer articles. Nevertheless, it's worth keeping his contributions page on watch. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
At the suggestion of my er, challenging collaborator I'm raising the issue here of whether operas in navigation box templates should be ordered by date of creation (that is, of completion), by premiere (with or without exceptions for posthumous premieres), or by publication (either date or opus number). There has been some arguing already here and here. It seems to me that, when known, creation and premiere dates could both be included without too much clutter, but that the former is more relevant in the ordering. Sparafucil ( talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The question of synopses and how to write them keeps coming up - in relations to copyright, consistency, style, accuracy etc. Should we discuss them here? Some questions:
1. Should synopses be based on original libretti, or is it sufficient to make short summaries based on Grove, Oxford or other indirect sources?
2. I assume we all have collections of recordings. Should we have a system of volunteering individually to listen to (and read the libretti of) operas and then writing full, thoroughgoing descriptions of stories? (One opera might take up a whole evening or more - but it would be enjoyable!)
3. Should important arias be noted within the synopsis, or in a separate list?
Perhaps we can agree a project guideline for future reference/avoiding misunderstandings? -- Kleinzach ( talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, Re 1. Synopses based on original libretti would be the ideal. However, as a shorter term solution, I think short summaries based on reliable and accurate indirect sources are fine - better something than nothing. By the way, I printed out the great history and synopsis of La straniera before the concert performance in London earlier this month. It was a godsend! Thanks to whoever wrote it.
Re 2. A system of volunteering individually to listen to and read the libretti of the operas and then write detailed synopses, seems fine for those who want to do it. Alas, I am not one of them. ;-)
Re 3. Like the others above, my impression was that we had already agreed that arias should ideally be incorporated into the synopsis. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.operatoday.com/content/2004/12/rossini_zelmira.php looks like an interesting take on it. Vanished user talk 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Rome was not built in a day. Most of us have been working on this project for less than two years - in my case almost exactly two years. When I started coverage was rudimentary, articles poor and categorization inaccurate. We have come a long way. We now have 4,000 articles, most of them referenced, categorized, interlinked and reasonably accessible. Quite an achievement! But perhaps it's worth getting this in perspective and remembering that previous reference works like Grove took decades (not to mention lots of money) to develop.
Mediawiki is a fast publishing tool. However it fosters a kind of 'fill in the boxes' mentality that can lead to poor work. Perhaps it would be better to take things more slowly - and actually sit down and listen to the operas occasionally? Even if we each listened to only one opera a month that would be the basis for a solid improvement in the quality of the synopses.
Libretti are not perfect, often far from it. My experience in writing synopses is that in each opera there is always at least one action/event/coincidence/ambiguity that is tricky to explain and requires very careful formulating. If someone then tries to summarize that synopsis they inevitable make a mistake.
There's also the intellectual property aspect. Taking factual/historical/listed etc. information from reference works is normal research. This information can be taken apart, checked and edited fact by fact - no problem. Synopses are different. The shorter the version in Grove or Oxford the more obvious the source of its summary in WP - and the implication that editors have not accessed the original work.
Finally, regarding project harmony, we have a code that deplores edit warring. If we have disagreements, we should discuss them here before resorting to reverting. Please understand that good editing is often critical editing. That's par for the WP course.
If you got this far - thanks for reading! -- Kleinzach ( talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If you check out the synopsis of The Fairy-Queen, I've always been quite pleased with the way I incorporated most of the arias into that particular synopsis.
I think the question of full synopses versus brief summaries largely (thought not entirely) boils down to questions of balance. If the rest of article can support a full synopsis, then go for it. If not, a brief summary may be better. Compare Agrippina (opera) with Prima la musica e poi le parole, for example. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:01, 2 December 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
In that case how about researching English works? There are many listed in The opera corpus. You'll find very few of them are illustrated. Also many need articles and even biographies (e.g. Edward Loder). Most opera project participants are interested in French, Italian and German works so it would be great if you could take over some of the English ones. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[Reset indent] I'm presuming we're ignoring the really big names like Purcell, Sullivan, Britten, Adams, etc.
Okay. Alfred Cellier was pretty important - moreso in opera than MacKenzie, anyway, but WP:G&S started work on him, and the coverage is... reasonable. Don't have all his operas, but have all the main ones and a good chunk of the minor. Frederic Clay largely collaborated with Gilbert for his major works, so file him under WP:G&S.
Edward Solomon ( The Nautch Girl, etc.) might be a very good choice. He's not very well covered as yet, but was undoubtedly important and popular.
However, there may be too many composers in the list. If we wanted to cut it down, I'd probably choose Arne, Wallace, Balfe, and Solomon. Vanished user talk 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be the male singers turn (December is 'New Music Divas'). Does anyone have any suggestions?
One that I thought might be useful (in preparation for February's 'Rossini Month') would be to have 3-5 male role creators in Rossini's operas (or ones that are/were particularly prominent Rossini singers). If there is any interest in this, I could put together some suggestions.
Another possibility, given that January is 'Gounod Month', would be French male singers of the mid to late 19th century. A quick glance at Gounod's operas throws up a lot of red links for the role creators. Best, Voceditenore 18:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to wrap this up, as I shall be off to deck the halls with boughs of holly soon. Can we narrow this down a bit? Otherwise it's a bit like a 'to do list', plus 10 singers is probably too many. I'd be inclined just to stick with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale or alternatively the Italian crowd ( Wladimiro Ganzarolli, Sesto Bruscantini, etc). Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Going once, going twice... Any objections to going with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale as per my comment above? If not I'll put them to the January SoM notice. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a stub at present, mainly from one source, but it's a start. Vanished user talk 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading up on the English Wikipedia policy on fair use photos Wikipedia:Non-free content, and it appears that images which may still be in copyright, but are of dead people (and thus with no possibility of a free image being obtained) may still be used under 'fair use', provided a detailed description and 'Fair use rationale' is provided, and the other conditions for fair use are met, e.g. low resolution, previously published outside Wikipedia, figure is of historical importance, etc. Here's an example I just used for a portrait of Francesco Cilea. I'm wondering if the wording on the Opera Project page should be changed to:
Or, should we let sleeping dogs lie? Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this link connects to the Royal Danish Theatre and the article states that this is the name of the company. The web site of the theatre though says it houses the The Royal Danish Opera and that this is the name of the company. Anyone know the truth? Nrswanson ( talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Alas, a new editor (started editing 3 weeks ago), Mickey_gfss2007, has taken it upon himself to start adding infoboxes to opera singers' articles. I reverted his edits and explained with a link in the edit summary. But he's reverted them all back. I left a message on his talk page too. But I suspect he's rather impervious. Take a look at the one for José Carreras. Groan!!! A complete distortion of his career and inaccurate to boot. Plus an invitation for the Catalan nationalists to start edit-warring too. Voceditenore ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just written a reply to the latest barrage from one of the article's authors on its talk page, explaining the background to my initial edit, which I hope will calm things down a bit. I would strongly suggest that we just leave it for now. Heated discussions, accusations and counter-accusations, especially when they involve a relatively inexperienced editor, can be very counter-productive, and rightly or wrongly can reflect badly on the Opera Project as well. It's an isolated case, and the arguments for removal have been clearly laid out on the talk page as a permanent record. Fortunately, it appears that Mickey_gfss2007 who started it all (and has not participated on that article's talk page) has laid off further opera singer articles. Nevertheless, it's worth keeping his contributions page on watch. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
At the suggestion of my er, challenging collaborator I'm raising the issue here of whether operas in navigation box templates should be ordered by date of creation (that is, of completion), by premiere (with or without exceptions for posthumous premieres), or by publication (either date or opus number). There has been some arguing already here and here. It seems to me that, when known, creation and premiere dates could both be included without too much clutter, but that the former is more relevant in the ordering. Sparafucil ( talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The question of synopses and how to write them keeps coming up - in relations to copyright, consistency, style, accuracy etc. Should we discuss them here? Some questions:
1. Should synopses be based on original libretti, or is it sufficient to make short summaries based on Grove, Oxford or other indirect sources?
2. I assume we all have collections of recordings. Should we have a system of volunteering individually to listen to (and read the libretti of) operas and then writing full, thoroughgoing descriptions of stories? (One opera might take up a whole evening or more - but it would be enjoyable!)
3. Should important arias be noted within the synopsis, or in a separate list?
Perhaps we can agree a project guideline for future reference/avoiding misunderstandings? -- Kleinzach ( talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, Re 1. Synopses based on original libretti would be the ideal. However, as a shorter term solution, I think short summaries based on reliable and accurate indirect sources are fine - better something than nothing. By the way, I printed out the great history and synopsis of La straniera before the concert performance in London earlier this month. It was a godsend! Thanks to whoever wrote it.
Re 2. A system of volunteering individually to listen to and read the libretti of the operas and then write detailed synopses, seems fine for those who want to do it. Alas, I am not one of them. ;-)
Re 3. Like the others above, my impression was that we had already agreed that arias should ideally be incorporated into the synopsis. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.operatoday.com/content/2004/12/rossini_zelmira.php looks like an interesting take on it. Vanished user talk 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Rome was not built in a day. Most of us have been working on this project for less than two years - in my case almost exactly two years. When I started coverage was rudimentary, articles poor and categorization inaccurate. We have come a long way. We now have 4,000 articles, most of them referenced, categorized, interlinked and reasonably accessible. Quite an achievement! But perhaps it's worth getting this in perspective and remembering that previous reference works like Grove took decades (not to mention lots of money) to develop.
Mediawiki is a fast publishing tool. However it fosters a kind of 'fill in the boxes' mentality that can lead to poor work. Perhaps it would be better to take things more slowly - and actually sit down and listen to the operas occasionally? Even if we each listened to only one opera a month that would be the basis for a solid improvement in the quality of the synopses.
Libretti are not perfect, often far from it. My experience in writing synopses is that in each opera there is always at least one action/event/coincidence/ambiguity that is tricky to explain and requires very careful formulating. If someone then tries to summarize that synopsis they inevitable make a mistake.
There's also the intellectual property aspect. Taking factual/historical/listed etc. information from reference works is normal research. This information can be taken apart, checked and edited fact by fact - no problem. Synopses are different. The shorter the version in Grove or Oxford the more obvious the source of its summary in WP - and the implication that editors have not accessed the original work.
Finally, regarding project harmony, we have a code that deplores edit warring. If we have disagreements, we should discuss them here before resorting to reverting. Please understand that good editing is often critical editing. That's par for the WP course.
If you got this far - thanks for reading! -- Kleinzach ( talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If you check out the synopsis of The Fairy-Queen, I've always been quite pleased with the way I incorporated most of the arias into that particular synopsis.
I think the question of full synopses versus brief summaries largely (thought not entirely) boils down to questions of balance. If the rest of article can support a full synopsis, then go for it. If not, a brief summary may be better. Compare Agrippina (opera) with Prima la musica e poi le parole, for example. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)