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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
I've serendipitously discovered that User:Mr.Z-man has a new service, available to any WikiProject, which gives a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Popular pages. I think that this would be a nice addition to our Project page (e.g. useful fodder for article improvement drives) and will be happy to ask Mr. Z-man to add us to his list - any thoughts, anyone? -- Guillaume Tell 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re this discussion at Talk:Don Giovanni, can we revisit the article format guidelines? While encouraging the incorporation of the arias into the synopsis, they have never explicitly said that there cannot be also a separate section lisitng them. I feel there should be both, for two reasons:
1. A simple separate list of the noted arias/ensembles is also very useful to readers. Ploughing through a detailed (and often convoluted) synopsis to find them is laborious to say the least.
2. This double format has already been used successfully in Agrippina.
Opinions please. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to having complete lists when all of the noted arais are contained within the text. Many/maybe most of the Verdi operas do have these listis. e.g. La traviata. I am not alone in having integrated them when expanding upon or adding a synopsis. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
On their own these sections seem a little unnecessary to me, but when combined with audio excerpts as in some articles, a list of musical numbers seems helpful. Markhh ( talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey members of WikiProject Opera! I've just been designing and building a bot to "fix" heading hierarchies. A topical example of what the bot would do for the other 16,000 odd pages listed as needing attention is this edit. The bot is trying to improve the accessibility of the page (per international guidelines, as well as the logical progression of headers for consistency reasons, whilst preserve the outline of the article. You can read more about what the bot would do here. These are all in line with (my reading of the) Manual of Style. Therefore the question for you is: should the bot fix Opera-related articles or should it leave them as is? (I am not sending this message to any other WikiProjects; it was suggested that opera articles be a special case scenario.) I personally would prefer them to be all fixed, and then, if anyone found how they looked oppresive they could reformat them, maybe just with bold; this is now the case on the Albert Vanloo article. Hope that makes sense, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Opera to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be some wide disparities between this list and the viewing statistics registered in the page history. For instance, Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) doesn't make the list, but according to the page stats it had 2641 views in May [1]. Taking Heinrich Marschner at #999, the list stats give 620 views, the page stats give 527 views [2]. The disparity between the Marschner stats makes sense if slightly different methods are being used; the disparity regarding Pelléas just doesn't compute to me. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC) (ec)Likewise, Iphigénie en Tauride (1264 views per page history [3]) but not on list, whereas L'amour de loin (114 views per talk page history [4]) is. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
|
I had some spare minutes this Saturday evening and was looking at those 1,000 numbers and they seemed to be begging for some inspection.
First, the obvious question: does assessment class have an influence on page views? The short answer is: 0.32 — that's the correlation coefficient between page views and assessment (graded as shown on the right), so it seems there is a weak positive correlation. But what about the absolute and percentage numbers per assessment class? See answers in the table on the right. The first observation is the small number of FAs, FLs and GAs: 13 between them; this makes any analysis of their page view numbers problematic.
Commentary: Given that almost 80% of these 1,000 articles are Start-class stubs, their preponderance in Views is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that the 8% of B-class articles get 26% of all views; in fact B-class articles are overrepresented in Views by exactly as much as FAs are. C-class articles attract proportionally a sigificant higher number of views than GAs. Lists and Stubs are viewed much less in proportion to their number and Featured Lists (all three of them) don't do much better than Start-class articles.
The other question is how concentrated the views are across the 1,000 articles: we reach 50% after 64 articles, 75% after 201; this means that the bottom 800 articles get 25% of the views. This can be expressed with the Gini coefficient (which ranges from 0 for perfect equality and 1 for perfect inequality), which is 0.68 — which is very much not equal. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
As a start, I've done two lists of articles from Popular pages with their last assessment dates, TOP 20 OVERALL and TOP 20 ON OPERAS. (I've excluded the articles from which we have removed the banners.) Note that many of the articles rated B, especially those on individual operas were notionally assessed with no comments in August 2008.
Thanks for compiling these lists. All the starts seem to be bot assessed. Therefore some of the fruit may be so low-lying that just assessing them will promote them. Of course, changing their "paper" ranking is just a cosmetic improvement. I notice that the assessed articles do not generally have comment sections filled in. Are they all in the general improvements list? Making sure that we somewhere have it documented what improvements to the major articles are needed to reach the next level will allow progress to be more systematic. I have the ENO guides for quite a few of the above operas. A list of the key areas for improvement to improve an article's ranking would probably allow me to pick out operas that I am interested in and have documentation for and in an afternoon improve an issue that would be worth a few ranking points.
The suggestion of having voice ranges as "operas of the month" was made on the assumption that they were poor articles that could easilly be improved. It certainly will be worth someone assessing them. We don't have our own marking system for these, but it might be worth someone suggesting a standard format with key expected contents etc so that we can have the articles all headed in the same direction.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the new WikiProject Opera/Popular pages above, I found some articles with the OP banner, that really aren't under the scope of the project. I removed it from:
If anyone disagrees, give a shout. Frankly, I'm also wondering if Burlesque really belongs with this project, but I've left it for now. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It certainly does point out a few fields to work on: A future OotM should be Soprano, Mezzo-soprano, Contralto, Tenor, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Contralto is an 1833 opera by Mezzo Soprano. It tells the tale of the titular heroine, and her doomed love, Bass Baritone. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Pinafore for promotion to Featured Article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 Please review and comment or vote there if you have a chance! All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC
During Agrippina's sojourn on the main page an editor queried the inclusion of "selected recordings" in opera articles. I believe his arguments have some merit – see Agrippina (opera) talk page. Since Selected recordings is a section recommended by the Opera Project for inclusion in opera article, perhaps the discussion could better be continued here. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Note. I've moved this to the bottom of the page for greater visibility. Can we have somne opinions on this? I.E. changing the article section from "Selected recordings" to simply "Recordings" in the format guidelines and advising that (a) a reference to a recording review should be provided for each entry and (b) pirate recordings should be avoided. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:52, 25 June 2009 (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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
I've serendipitously discovered that User:Mr.Z-man has a new service, available to any WikiProject, which gives a monthly update of the number of hits on the 1,000 most frequently accessed articles for that project. Example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Popular pages. I think that this would be a nice addition to our Project page (e.g. useful fodder for article improvement drives) and will be happy to ask Mr. Z-man to add us to his list - any thoughts, anyone? -- Guillaume Tell 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Re this discussion at Talk:Don Giovanni, can we revisit the article format guidelines? While encouraging the incorporation of the arias into the synopsis, they have never explicitly said that there cannot be also a separate section lisitng them. I feel there should be both, for two reasons:
1. A simple separate list of the noted arias/ensembles is also very useful to readers. Ploughing through a detailed (and often convoluted) synopsis to find them is laborious to say the least.
2. This double format has already been used successfully in Agrippina.
Opinions please. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to having complete lists when all of the noted arais are contained within the text. Many/maybe most of the Verdi operas do have these listis. e.g. La traviata. I am not alone in having integrated them when expanding upon or adding a synopsis. Viva-Verdi ( talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
On their own these sections seem a little unnecessary to me, but when combined with audio excerpts as in some articles, a list of musical numbers seems helpful. Markhh ( talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey members of WikiProject Opera! I've just been designing and building a bot to "fix" heading hierarchies. A topical example of what the bot would do for the other 16,000 odd pages listed as needing attention is this edit. The bot is trying to improve the accessibility of the page (per international guidelines, as well as the logical progression of headers for consistency reasons, whilst preserve the outline of the article. You can read more about what the bot would do here. These are all in line with (my reading of the) Manual of Style. Therefore the question for you is: should the bot fix Opera-related articles or should it leave them as is? (I am not sending this message to any other WikiProjects; it was suggested that opera articles be a special case scenario.) I personally would prefer them to be all fixed, and then, if anyone found how they looked oppresive they could reformat them, maybe just with bold; this is now the case on the Albert Vanloo article. Hope that makes sense, - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Opera to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. I can also get provide the full data for any project covered by the bot if requested, though I normally don't keep it for much longer than a couple weeks after the list is generated. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 04:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be some wide disparities between this list and the viewing statistics registered in the page history. For instance, Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) doesn't make the list, but according to the page stats it had 2641 views in May [1]. Taking Heinrich Marschner at #999, the list stats give 620 views, the page stats give 527 views [2]. The disparity between the Marschner stats makes sense if slightly different methods are being used; the disparity regarding Pelléas just doesn't compute to me. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC) (ec)Likewise, Iphigénie en Tauride (1264 views per page history [3]) but not on list, whereas L'amour de loin (114 views per talk page history [4]) is. -- Folantin ( talk) 09:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
|
I had some spare minutes this Saturday evening and was looking at those 1,000 numbers and they seemed to be begging for some inspection.
First, the obvious question: does assessment class have an influence on page views? The short answer is: 0.32 — that's the correlation coefficient between page views and assessment (graded as shown on the right), so it seems there is a weak positive correlation. But what about the absolute and percentage numbers per assessment class? See answers in the table on the right. The first observation is the small number of FAs, FLs and GAs: 13 between them; this makes any analysis of their page view numbers problematic.
Commentary: Given that almost 80% of these 1,000 articles are Start-class stubs, their preponderance in Views is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that the 8% of B-class articles get 26% of all views; in fact B-class articles are overrepresented in Views by exactly as much as FAs are. C-class articles attract proportionally a sigificant higher number of views than GAs. Lists and Stubs are viewed much less in proportion to their number and Featured Lists (all three of them) don't do much better than Start-class articles.
The other question is how concentrated the views are across the 1,000 articles: we reach 50% after 64 articles, 75% after 201; this means that the bottom 800 articles get 25% of the views. This can be expressed with the Gini coefficient (which ranges from 0 for perfect equality and 1 for perfect inequality), which is 0.68 — which is very much not equal. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
As a start, I've done two lists of articles from Popular pages with their last assessment dates, TOP 20 OVERALL and TOP 20 ON OPERAS. (I've excluded the articles from which we have removed the banners.) Note that many of the articles rated B, especially those on individual operas were notionally assessed with no comments in August 2008.
Thanks for compiling these lists. All the starts seem to be bot assessed. Therefore some of the fruit may be so low-lying that just assessing them will promote them. Of course, changing their "paper" ranking is just a cosmetic improvement. I notice that the assessed articles do not generally have comment sections filled in. Are they all in the general improvements list? Making sure that we somewhere have it documented what improvements to the major articles are needed to reach the next level will allow progress to be more systematic. I have the ENO guides for quite a few of the above operas. A list of the key areas for improvement to improve an article's ranking would probably allow me to pick out operas that I am interested in and have documentation for and in an afternoon improve an issue that would be worth a few ranking points.
The suggestion of having voice ranges as "operas of the month" was made on the assumption that they were poor articles that could easilly be improved. It certainly will be worth someone assessing them. We don't have our own marking system for these, but it might be worth someone suggesting a standard format with key expected contents etc so that we can have the articles all headed in the same direction.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 10:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the new WikiProject Opera/Popular pages above, I found some articles with the OP banner, that really aren't under the scope of the project. I removed it from:
If anyone disagrees, give a shout. Frankly, I'm also wondering if Burlesque really belongs with this project, but I've left it for now. Voceditenore ( talk) 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It certainly does point out a few fields to work on: A future OotM should be Soprano, Mezzo-soprano, Contralto, Tenor, etc. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Contralto is an 1833 opera by Mezzo Soprano. It tells the tale of the titular heroine, and her doomed love, Bass Baritone. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Pinafore for promotion to Featured Article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 Please review and comment or vote there if you have a chance! All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC
During Agrippina's sojourn on the main page an editor queried the inclusion of "selected recordings" in opera articles. I believe his arguments have some merit – see Agrippina (opera) talk page. Since Selected recordings is a section recommended by the Opera Project for inclusion in opera article, perhaps the discussion could better be continued here. Brianboulton ( talk) 09:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Note. I've moved this to the bottom of the page for greater visibility. Can we have somne opinions on this? I.E. changing the article section from "Selected recordings" to simply "Recordings" in the format guidelines and advising that (a) a reference to a recording review should be provided for each entry and (b) pirate recordings should be avoided. Voceditenore ( talk) 07:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)