![]() | 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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
I'm rather intrigued as to why the stub tag was removed from La fausse esclave. In most department of wikipedia this would still be labelled as a stub. Basically I look at is as "What does this article tell me about the opera"? The answer is very little. The Bald One White cat 12:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Die weiße Rose (opera), recently started is a clear start class. There are shorter articles also which meet start class requirments too like the similar Le cinesi, but I think it is a great deal to do with the plot of the opera. If the article tels as practically nothing about the opera itself other than it is an "intrigue about a father and daughter" do you think this is a satisfactory summary of the plot? The Bald One White cat 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't say "intrigue about a father and daughter". It says "The story is of an intrigue undertaken to secure a father’s assent to his daughter’s marriage." I would say that's sufficient to give an idea of what the plot involves. It's a one act work, stuffed full of arias, originally described in the libretto as a mêlé d'ariettes. Given that the full score is lost, and the opera is not going to be performed unless someone tries to reconstruct it, what's there seems reasonable for a "start". It might be too short a summary if we were talking about something like La traviata, but we're not. The "start" in this case seems in line with this. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I also agree with Grutness in that stubs are not defined by the length of article. It is the lack of content which is necessary to give a basic understanding of an article and I don't believe that article is quite there. One rule can't apply for one opera article and not for another. If it is not notable enough to have a seperate article why not merge into a list to save short articles on each one if they can't be expanded? The Bald One White cat 13:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well remember that to the "outsider" a]they are not aware it is an obscure article b] they do not know how it differs significantly from other french language operas c] they are not to know that the plot cannot be expanded d]they would wonder why the article exists in the first place if it is not really of note or a fuller article cannot be written. e]placing it as a stub increases the likelihood somebody would come along and expand it so it isn't a big deal. f]|Either way you look at it, it is still a short article which compared to other opera articles looks very sparse but I know nothing about this opera nor know what sources could be used to expand it to therefore I must depart. The Bald One White cat 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Two comments here - firstly, stub and Stub-Class are completely different things - it is perfectly acceptable for an article to be assessed as Start-Class by a WikiProject and still be marked as a stub for general Wikipedia editors (or be marked as Stub-Class and not be marked as a stub). As such, there should be little problem if a -WPO-assessed Start-Class article has a stub template. Secondly, perhaps WPO should consider the possibility of using {{ notstub}} on any articles that its members think have been expanded as far as they can? After all, you are the experts in this field - you'll know better than the majority of stub-sorters when something's reached its maximum. Grutness... wha? 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Spanish opera has just appeared. The subject is a worthy one. The execution most unfortunate. ;-) Anyone care to try a rescue job? I wouldn't be able to even start working on it for a week. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In December, we can expect a lot of traffic to Puccini-related articles. I'd suggest that attempting to get Giacomo Puccini up to FA [So it can run on the front page for his anniversary], and, if possible, La bohème, Tosca, and Madame Butterfly to GA would be our best goal for this month. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Music in Britain: 1905 and after is a current Featured Essay on The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some of you may find it useful. I'm not sure how long it will remain open access. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this: it:Immagine:Benelli_e_Montemezzi.jpg (Imagine, no it: Montemezzi article!) with its warning not to move to commons, although the caption identifies it as first decade of the 20c and the subjects do look quite a bit under their mid-forties, making the photo pd-US. How would one move it, exactly? Another case was Hans Bethge's portrait, not pd and now gone from de-wiki but once on the German article without being linkable from en-wiki. Sparafucil ( talk) 13:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient vocal method if any members wish to comment. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
They are offering free online access to all 500 of their journals through October 31st. All you have to do is register so they can send you email adverts. (In my experience, they don't overdo this). The journals that would be most relevant to this project are: Psychology of Music, General Music Today, and Media, Culture & Society but some of the anthropology and history journals might also have something. You can sign up here. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Today John Blow is the featured biography at DNB. You can get this detailed article here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html. I am sure it will help anyone interested in early English music to expand this article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Marjorie Thomas was a contralto (in those far-off days when contraltos existed (Oh! the joys of Kathleen Ferrier!); I know, I saw her, heard her, and have the records. But her range extended into what is now considered to be that of the mezzo-soprano. So Marjorie Thomas was a contralto who sang both contralto and mezzo roles. Is there any reason why she should not enjoy the categories of both contralto and mezzo-soprano? Or is there a "rule" against it? Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 18:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been working on the articles for several opera composers: Eugen d'Albert, Alfred Cellier, and Frederic Clay. Unfortunately, I do not have access to Grove. Would someone kindly check the Grove entries for these composers and add any relevant information and a reference to the Grove entry? Thanks for any assistance! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the featured list List of important operas currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion 0422 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion in light of the Puccini 150th coming up in December - some Puccini role creators who still lack articles...
Note: I've selected ones about which there is a reasonable amount of information. As for the rest of the many other red-linked Puccini creators, I'm wondering if they ought to have red links at all. Many were in small parts and do not even appear to have entries in Grove or any other significant biographical information available. Are they feasible future articles? If not, my suggestion would be to de-link them and add any available information (a few have birth and death dates) in a footnote. Loads of red-links in an article don't look good and they also give a distorted impression of the singer's notability. Opinions? Voceditenore ( talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: The October SoM was pretty successful. We got reasonable articles for all 3 of the original 'nominees': Celestina Boninsegna, Eugenia Burzio and Lina Bruna Rasa, including a DYK for Celestina Boninsegna on today's main page. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've filled in the SoM form as per above, as tomorrow is November 1st. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been my observation that this project has been very successful at expansion of new articles but has not been as successful at improving the articles we already have. I would like to suggest that perhaps we start another "of the Month" section for already existing articles that we want to work on together to improve. This could also be a forum for getting some more GA, FA, and FL rated articles in the project. What do you all think? Nrswanson ( talk) 10:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There has recently been a major overhall of the Category:USA opera companies into sub-categories by state. I'm not sure I like this. Most states only have one or two companies and only a few, like New York State, have a significant number. Nrswanson ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I inject a note of sanity here? I am not an American, but I have no problem with anyone using the term "American" to describe a citizen of the USA. Do Canadians think of themselves as Americans? No, they don't. Do Mexicans, or Chileans, or ... - no, none of them do. "Americano" in Spanish (as used in Central and South America) doesn't mean a person from the continent(s) of America, it means a citizen of the USA. I imagine that the same or similar word is used by the Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. So there is no reason why Opera Project "by country" categories - and those don't exist only for opera companies but also for opera houses, singers, composers, etc., etc. - should differ from "by country" categories elsewhere in WP. There is common sense and there is pedantry, and I am on the side of common sense. -- Guillaume Tell 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason we spent time discussing this here rather than individually reverting all your edits on sight, is that we always discuss changes of that order before making them to make sure there's a consensus. Raven1977, I'm sure your changes were well-meaning, but it would have been helpful if you had run your proposal past this project before making such wholescale changes to the articles we look after, or at least told us after the fact. It may look like a "mountain out of molehill" to you, but these can potentially affect our category navigation box, the cat listings on our project page, and bot runs as well. If nothing else, by coming here first you could have got some input about this and avoided a lot of extra work for all concerned. Now, I have already reverted the cat you put on Washington National Opera, because it's not in the state of Washington, it's in Washington, D.C. I'm rather confused about what was the state before the changes were made but I presume we had Category:Opera companies plus some random subcategories e.g. Category:American opera companies and Category:Chicago opera companies, Category:Italian opera companies (tagged under-populated), Category:Bulgarian opera companies etc. Right now, a lot of this stuff seems to be in limbo. There are empty categories, articles which now have a sub-category but aren't moved into it, new empty categories like Category:North American opera companies, categories with members but a redirect notice on top etc. etc. What do people here think we should do?
Whatever we decide, there's a fair amount of clean-up work needed and articles and categories that need to be double-checked. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
All done, and I'll list the empty categories at CFD when I get round to it. All American opera companies are back in Category:American opera companies except for those located in New York City and Chicago, which are the only sub-cats still in existence. On inspection, I found that the California companies were scattered all over the state and not (as I'd assumed) concentrated in San Francisco and/or Los Angeles. -- Guillaume Tell 18:28, 18 November 2008 (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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 | → | Archive 80 |
I'm rather intrigued as to why the stub tag was removed from La fausse esclave. In most department of wikipedia this would still be labelled as a stub. Basically I look at is as "What does this article tell me about the opera"? The answer is very little. The Bald One White cat 12:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Die weiße Rose (opera), recently started is a clear start class. There are shorter articles also which meet start class requirments too like the similar Le cinesi, but I think it is a great deal to do with the plot of the opera. If the article tels as practically nothing about the opera itself other than it is an "intrigue about a father and daughter" do you think this is a satisfactory summary of the plot? The Bald One White cat 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't say "intrigue about a father and daughter". It says "The story is of an intrigue undertaken to secure a father’s assent to his daughter’s marriage." I would say that's sufficient to give an idea of what the plot involves. It's a one act work, stuffed full of arias, originally described in the libretto as a mêlé d'ariettes. Given that the full score is lost, and the opera is not going to be performed unless someone tries to reconstruct it, what's there seems reasonable for a "start". It might be too short a summary if we were talking about something like La traviata, but we're not. The "start" in this case seems in line with this. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I also agree with Grutness in that stubs are not defined by the length of article. It is the lack of content which is necessary to give a basic understanding of an article and I don't believe that article is quite there. One rule can't apply for one opera article and not for another. If it is not notable enough to have a seperate article why not merge into a list to save short articles on each one if they can't be expanded? The Bald One White cat 13:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well remember that to the "outsider" a]they are not aware it is an obscure article b] they do not know how it differs significantly from other french language operas c] they are not to know that the plot cannot be expanded d]they would wonder why the article exists in the first place if it is not really of note or a fuller article cannot be written. e]placing it as a stub increases the likelihood somebody would come along and expand it so it isn't a big deal. f]|Either way you look at it, it is still a short article which compared to other opera articles looks very sparse but I know nothing about this opera nor know what sources could be used to expand it to therefore I must depart. The Bald One White cat 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Two comments here - firstly, stub and Stub-Class are completely different things - it is perfectly acceptable for an article to be assessed as Start-Class by a WikiProject and still be marked as a stub for general Wikipedia editors (or be marked as Stub-Class and not be marked as a stub). As such, there should be little problem if a -WPO-assessed Start-Class article has a stub template. Secondly, perhaps WPO should consider the possibility of using {{ notstub}} on any articles that its members think have been expanded as far as they can? After all, you are the experts in this field - you'll know better than the majority of stub-sorters when something's reached its maximum. Grutness... wha? 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Spanish opera has just appeared. The subject is a worthy one. The execution most unfortunate. ;-) Anyone care to try a rescue job? I wouldn't be able to even start working on it for a week. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In December, we can expect a lot of traffic to Puccini-related articles. I'd suggest that attempting to get Giacomo Puccini up to FA [So it can run on the front page for his anniversary], and, if possible, La bohème, Tosca, and Madame Butterfly to GA would be our best goal for this month. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Music in Britain: 1905 and after is a current Featured Essay on The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some of you may find it useful. I'm not sure how long it will remain open access. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this: it:Immagine:Benelli_e_Montemezzi.jpg (Imagine, no it: Montemezzi article!) with its warning not to move to commons, although the caption identifies it as first decade of the 20c and the subjects do look quite a bit under their mid-forties, making the photo pd-US. How would one move it, exactly? Another case was Hans Bethge's portrait, not pd and now gone from de-wiki but once on the German article without being linkable from en-wiki. Sparafucil ( talk) 13:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient vocal method if any members wish to comment. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
They are offering free online access to all 500 of their journals through October 31st. All you have to do is register so they can send you email adverts. (In my experience, they don't overdo this). The journals that would be most relevant to this project are: Psychology of Music, General Music Today, and Media, Culture & Society but some of the anthropology and history journals might also have something. You can sign up here. Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Today John Blow is the featured biography at DNB. You can get this detailed article here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html. I am sure it will help anyone interested in early English music to expand this article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. Marjorie Thomas was a contralto (in those far-off days when contraltos existed (Oh! the joys of Kathleen Ferrier!); I know, I saw her, heard her, and have the records. But her range extended into what is now considered to be that of the mezzo-soprano. So Marjorie Thomas was a contralto who sang both contralto and mezzo roles. Is there any reason why she should not enjoy the categories of both contralto and mezzo-soprano? Or is there a "rule" against it? Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 18:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have recently been working on the articles for several opera composers: Eugen d'Albert, Alfred Cellier, and Frederic Clay. Unfortunately, I do not have access to Grove. Would someone kindly check the Grove entries for these composers and add any relevant information and a reference to the Grove entry? Thanks for any assistance! Best regards, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, the featured list List of important operas currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion 0422 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion in light of the Puccini 150th coming up in December - some Puccini role creators who still lack articles...
Note: I've selected ones about which there is a reasonable amount of information. As for the rest of the many other red-linked Puccini creators, I'm wondering if they ought to have red links at all. Many were in small parts and do not even appear to have entries in Grove or any other significant biographical information available. Are they feasible future articles? If not, my suggestion would be to de-link them and add any available information (a few have birth and death dates) in a footnote. Loads of red-links in an article don't look good and they also give a distorted impression of the singer's notability. Opinions? Voceditenore ( talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
PS: The October SoM was pretty successful. We got reasonable articles for all 3 of the original 'nominees': Celestina Boninsegna, Eugenia Burzio and Lina Bruna Rasa, including a DYK for Celestina Boninsegna on today's main page. Voceditenore ( talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I've filled in the SoM form as per above, as tomorrow is November 1st. Voceditenore ( talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been my observation that this project has been very successful at expansion of new articles but has not been as successful at improving the articles we already have. I would like to suggest that perhaps we start another "of the Month" section for already existing articles that we want to work on together to improve. This could also be a forum for getting some more GA, FA, and FL rated articles in the project. What do you all think? Nrswanson ( talk) 10:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There has recently been a major overhall of the Category:USA opera companies into sub-categories by state. I'm not sure I like this. Most states only have one or two companies and only a few, like New York State, have a significant number. Nrswanson ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I inject a note of sanity here? I am not an American, but I have no problem with anyone using the term "American" to describe a citizen of the USA. Do Canadians think of themselves as Americans? No, they don't. Do Mexicans, or Chileans, or ... - no, none of them do. "Americano" in Spanish (as used in Central and South America) doesn't mean a person from the continent(s) of America, it means a citizen of the USA. I imagine that the same or similar word is used by the Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. So there is no reason why Opera Project "by country" categories - and those don't exist only for opera companies but also for opera houses, singers, composers, etc., etc. - should differ from "by country" categories elsewhere in WP. There is common sense and there is pedantry, and I am on the side of common sense. -- Guillaume Tell 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason we spent time discussing this here rather than individually reverting all your edits on sight, is that we always discuss changes of that order before making them to make sure there's a consensus. Raven1977, I'm sure your changes were well-meaning, but it would have been helpful if you had run your proposal past this project before making such wholescale changes to the articles we look after, or at least told us after the fact. It may look like a "mountain out of molehill" to you, but these can potentially affect our category navigation box, the cat listings on our project page, and bot runs as well. If nothing else, by coming here first you could have got some input about this and avoided a lot of extra work for all concerned. Now, I have already reverted the cat you put on Washington National Opera, because it's not in the state of Washington, it's in Washington, D.C. I'm rather confused about what was the state before the changes were made but I presume we had Category:Opera companies plus some random subcategories e.g. Category:American opera companies and Category:Chicago opera companies, Category:Italian opera companies (tagged under-populated), Category:Bulgarian opera companies etc. Right now, a lot of this stuff seems to be in limbo. There are empty categories, articles which now have a sub-category but aren't moved into it, new empty categories like Category:North American opera companies, categories with members but a redirect notice on top etc. etc. What do people here think we should do?
Whatever we decide, there's a fair amount of clean-up work needed and articles and categories that need to be double-checked. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
All done, and I'll list the empty categories at CFD when I get round to it. All American opera companies are back in Category:American opera companies except for those located in New York City and Chicago, which are the only sub-cats still in existence. On inspection, I found that the California companies were scattered all over the state and not (as I'd assumed) concentrated in San Francisco and/or Los Angeles. -- Guillaume Tell 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)