Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. 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.

OK, great (in the strict sense of the term "Melodrama" we'd have not much more than one work by Rousseau and a couple of things by Benda). I've sorted out the Grand Opera category by the way. --Folantin 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please explain here, in the Talk page, if you intend to make any radical changes?

I see you removed Faust from the list of grand operas despite its inclusion in the excellent Grand opera article ("finally . . . Faust was premiered at the Opéra. By then, the work had enough additions for it to qualify as a full-fledged grand opéra.") also the clear explanation in Grove about the 1869 version. - Kleinzach 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I always thought Faust was an opéra lyrique (it was premiered at the Théâtre Lyrique). Reinstate it as a Grand Opera if you like. --Folantin 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The first version was made for the Théâtre Lirique and, in fact, is an opéra lyrique. The last version was made for the Opéra and is a grand-opéra. --Al pereira 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Six months ago the Project was contacted by the Wikipedia 1.0 version people to request articles that they could stick into their project. At that time it was explained that as coverage of operatic topics was so basic we couldn't really help (it's all in Archive 2). A lot has happened in those six months and I wonder whether now we aren't sufficiently advanced so that we can't contribute something. Coverage of opera has improved enormously and a concerted drive on the main opera article and various others should mean that operatic fundamentals could be covered to an acceptable standard (for the purposes of that project) fairly quickly. Any thoughts? --Moreschi 15:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what other people think but IMO we are still working on the basics. I don't know of any articles which have been fully developed (except for Porgy and Bess). The articles on the Donizetti operas are a case in point. They have basic factual information but that is all. (We have achieved a great deal in the last six months but putting out top-class articles is not one of them - it will come though!) - Kleinzach 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From time to time I make redirect pages that guide, say, a reader entering Dove sono to The Marriage of Figaro, to pick a too-obvious example. There are many moderately well-known arias that might not deserve their own article (yet), but which might redirect the curious reader to the opera in question. When one is editing an opera article, it's easy to open a second window, cut n paste aria incepits into the navigation bar, hit "Enter" and make a redirect. Redirect pages are easily rewritten as full articles at any time. --Wetman 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO it is better to keep redirects for titles. Content can easily be found using search. Anyone who forgets where 'Dove sono' appears can find the answer easily enough, either through WP or Google. - Kleinzach 03:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There's currently no consistency for recordings listing on opera articles. Here's one idea (using Parsifal).

Adding supplemental notes on the recording or album cover art would take further table manipulation, but as of now most listings have neither of those. Note that I'm not strongly advocating this, just throwing it out for discussion. Fireplace 00:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The table looks great. In some cases we might need an introductory paragraph explaining the recording history preceding the table but the tabular format IMO is the best way of clearly conveying the basic information. I wonder if we need a column indicating the type of recording? What would be the categories: acoustical, electric, analogue video, digital audio, digital video? Perhaps someone can suggest a complete set of types?

So far we haven't done a great deal about recordings, but this is an area - like the performance history - where we can really score against the fixed-in-stone print publications like Grove. The information is also easily available on the net - you don't need reference books to get the info. - Kleinzach 02:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you need to do that for all operas and performers/singers/conductors then? --Doublea 03:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for all operas, yes certainly, but there is no hurry. After all we have about 500 articles on operas. - Kleinzach 13:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like having a clear and standardized format for recordings, and perhaps for operas with several important recordings the table format is the best. I wonder whether a column for the catalog number would be appropriate? I wish recordings had an equivalent of ISBNs, since different releases of the same recording might vary in significant ways (maybe not, but the liner notes could be different, remastered, etc.) Also, I wonder whether a template similar to Template:Cite book would be appropriate, especially in articles where difinitive recordings are less important, but still a useful resource. I've tried to put together a table which will work for characters, etc. for operas which I will post below. Mak (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The tables look good to me, on a cursory inspection. Re Doublea's post above, I recently translated User:RCS's German article on Robert Lloyd and adding a selective list of recordings seemed a good idea. I really wasn't sure how much or how little information to include and ended up with just title (not wikilinked), conductor (wikilinked), label, date. Should I have included Lloyd's role? Other principal singers? Composer? Catalogue number? Would a table have been useful here? I don't suppose that this is the only singer article with a list of recordings, and I bet they all include different information. If we could agree on a standard template, that would make life easier.

A conductor template would have to be a bit different, I guess. --GuillaumeTell 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of proposed additions/deletions to the List of major opera composers are now on the related Talk page. Please let us have your opinion by voting and making any nominations you think appropriate. (The hope is to come up with a stable and well-established list!) - Kleinzach 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't even know this list existed. Just off to vote now. Moreschi 16:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just made the changes in line with the vote. We are now down to a list of 41 composers. IMO it's an improved, more reasonable, selection. - Kleinzach 15:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to add Amilcare Ponchielli --Al pereira 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could supply us with reasoning as to why? Cheers, Moreschi 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"La Gioconda" is a major title and the author was mainly an opera composer, unlike some great composers included in the list like Hector Berlioz and Ludwig van Beethoven. Note that the list includes Ruggero Leoncavallo, who did one only (nowadays) popular opera, exactly like Ponchielli. --Al pereira 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Any other opinions? I'm kind of undecided. Moreschi 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting is coninuing with a new set of names for inclusion/deletion at the Talk page. Please add any suggestions there. - Kleinzach 01:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
|+'''Prelude'''
! Character !! Description     !! Voice part   !! Original cast
|-
| Le Temps  || God of [[Time]] || [[baritone]] || ?
|-
! colspan="4" | '''Tragedy'''
|-
|| Atys      || [[Attis]],  relative of Sangaride and favourite of Celaenus || ''[[haute-contre]]'' ||Cledière 
|-
|}

This one is useful if there are distinct segments of the opera (example hopefully posted in a couple minutes at Atys (Lully). The one below is somewhat simpler, but is probably good enough for most things. (example Owen Wingrave) I'm sure something better than a question mark could be proposed when part of the original cast is unknown.

:::{| border=0
|-
| valign=top |
:'''Character'''
:Bob
| valign=top |
:'''Description'''
:A nice guy, friend of Joey
| valign=top |
:'''Voice part'''
:Coluratura bass
| valign=top |
:'''Original cast'''
:John Smith
|}

Mak (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The official and legal name of the organization is "OPERA America." Originally, O.P.E.R.A. was an anagram. The capitals have been preserved as part of the name although the longer name is not in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OperaDevel (talk • contribs)

Welcome OperaDevel (although we won't know it's you unless you sign with four tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~ ~, but without the spaces). Thanks for explaining your reasoning. Best, Moreschi 19:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome OperaDevel. If you take a look at the page Opera America, we noted that the name OPERA America is the official name; however, names in caps are a bit discouraged in Wikipedia. --Doublea 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that I've been reading a lot on Laurent Pelly recently (given his Santa Fe Opera production of Cendrillon this year), I'll "have a go" at putting an article together. Vivaverdi 04:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed the appearance of "trivia-creep" in some opera articles (Esp. Carmen and Ride of the Valkyries). Being such well known works, I feel it is unnecessary to document every use/parody of the music. However, sometimes the trivia section can present extremely interesting information (Eg. Götterdämmerung), or detail a famous use of the music (eg. Apocalypse Now). I feel we need a policy on how long the "Adaptations", "Influences on Popular Culture" or "Trivia" sections should be (Or if we should even include them). At the moment, articles like Madama Butterfly are humorous in their lack of focus on the actual operas. --Alexs letterbox 07:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pagliacci is another good example. We have discussed hiving this stuff off into separate articles. i am in favour of this. - Kleinzach 08:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the William Tell Overture into a separate article. Must do some work on the actual opera sometime. Meanwhile, Valkyries in popular culture is currently referenced in Valkyrie, and in Norse mythology in popular culture, but not in Die Walküre!.

In answer to Alexs, my view is that a small Trivia (or whatever) section is OK, but a separate article is required once the number of instances rises above about four. --GuillaumeTell 09:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In the first place, I favor a heading like "Cultural impact" or "Cultural influence" rather than "Trivia." The latter suggests, frankly, "trivial"; but the fact that an opera has had a wide cultural impact can be genuinely important, if it's explained in the right way. (I am not saying it always is explained the right way; sometimes, you just get a random assortment of bullets. Like any type of content, copy-editing is necessary.)

Wikipedia articles tend to acquire material in whatever order editors feel like contributing. The Madama Butterfly article is obviously out-of-balance. But that's not because the popular culture section is excessive, but because the substantive background is so woefully lacking.

For a few operas (and it will only be a few), there may be enough of this kind of material to make a separate article, but I think it takes far more than just four instances. A four-bullet article would be pretty anemic. Ride of the Valkyries and William Tell Overture are good examples where the decision to create separate articles was sensible.

In the Madama Butterfly article, the section on cultural influence is just one screenful (on my monitor, anyway), and the overall article is well within Wikipedia's length guidelines. I would worry a lot more about what is missing from that article, than about what is there. When and if that article becomes too unruly, that would be the time to decide to split it. I suspect there will be very few operas for which this makes sense.

A categorical rule to split out the cultural impact when it attains more than a few bullets sounds like content forking to me. Marc Shepherd 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think GuillaumeTell has got the right end of the stick. A "Trivia" section (or "In Popular Culture", another popular heading) is fairly useless and throws articles out of wack. See Requiem (Mozart), for an "in popular culture" section that I think has got way too long. If they contain useful content, then rename per sugestions above, but we don't need every single wretched film in which the Valkyrie motif, the Carmen overture or the Dies Irae crops up. If they are to survive, these Trivia sections need to be drastically cut. A formula such as "The music for (whatever) has been used in many films (a couple of examples), and in general has had a broad impact on popular culture as a whole (one or two examples)". If anyone wants to add more examples, tell them to go and create a separate article. I don't see any problem with that. Best to all, Moreschi 12:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to carefully distinguish: A) Whether the material is encyclopedic; and, B) Whether a separate article is needed. The Requiem (Mozart) article is not particularly long, and the cultural impact portion of it is ten bullets. To divide the article would be content-forking, which would be a mistake. Guillaume Tell's suggestion to fork after four bullets would surely be wrong. If your argument is that the material doesn't belong in Wikipedia, or isn't well presented, let's have that discussion. Content-forking is the wrong approach. All that does is push the problem—assuming it is a problem—somewhere else. Marc Shepherd 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA is worth a read, even though it's muddled and inconsistent. The thrust is that the minimum standard for inclusion is "interesting", the preferable standard is "important". Since opera is a narrow niche, here's another proposal for a standard: would a typical reader of the article find the trivia information interesting? Stories about Toscas on trampolines pass this test, names of rock albums fail it. Fireplace 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable proposal. Of the 20 or so items on the Pagliacci, almost all of them would fail the test. I would be happy to see a new page called 'Opera trivia' (or whatever) to which all this information could be tranferred en masse but perhaps there would be objections. - Kleinzach 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the trivia that fails that test (for me at least) for Pagliacci and Carmen. --Alexs letterbox 09:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has already reverted the Carmen edits (properly so). Frankly, I couldn't see how Alexs decided which trivia to keep and which to throw away. Is "trivia I like" an editing criterion?

I would object to a new page called 'Opera trivia'. It's a pretext for moving the material one doesn't like to a page one won't have to look at any more. If it belongs in Wikipedia, then it belongs with the opera article, unless that article overall becomes too long. If it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then creating a new article just transfers a problem, rather than solving it. Marc Shepherd 11:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"If it belongs in Wikipedia, then it belongs with the opera article" Marc Shepherd. Dare I say this is classic non-sequitur! If it belongs in Wikipedia - and not everything does - it may well belong somewhere other than the opera article! - Kleinzach 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest everybody read Wikipedia:Content forking. Alexs's edit at least has the virtue that he didn't fork the content; he killed it. To the extent one believes that this content doesn't belong on Wikipedia, Alexs's edit was at least a sincere attempt at permanent improvement. In contrast, forking just transfers a problem elsewhere.

Having said that, the editor who reverted Alexs's Carmen edits was probably correct, because of the crudeness of those edits. However, in his desire to improve the material, Alexs was at least headed in the right direction.Marc Shepherd 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about non-sequiturs! We are not content forking!! That is when (direct quote) "Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the topic". We are trying to keep the opera articles in balance. Most of the trivia sections are useless and throw entries (particularly shorter ones) out of balance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colllection of information. We are not POV pushing, just splitting articles up in a useful manner. If a trivia section gets too long, then cut most of it and move that to "Madama Butterfly's (or whatever) impact on general culture", providing a wikilink from the original article. Why should trivial trivia sections be forced to stay in the articles? I see nothing wrong with that solution. Best, Moreschi 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor, now I come to mention it, do trivia sections really treat the same topic as the bulk of the opera article will. Further evidence that we are not content forking. Moreschi 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read Wikipedia:Content forking, as Marc Shepherd suggests, but IMO this is not what we are doing, or proposing to do, here. The content of the trivia sections is markedly different from that of the opera articles - that's the whole point. - Kleinzach 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

When it comes to anecdotes, influences on pop culture, and other peripheral content or "trivia", information should only be included in opera articles if it is likely to be of interest to a typical reader of the article. Examples of content which almost always fail this test are: songs, albums, video games, TV shows, or movies that reference the opera. Examples of content passing the test are: Apocalypse Now's use of The Ride of the Valkyries and direct adaptations such as Carmen Jones.

I think that under that policy, there won't be any trivia sections that swell to the point of requiring separate articles. I think that this is a precisification of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as it pertains to the opera niche. Fireplace 14:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. - Kleinzach 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal too. Some of the trivia sections are trivial beyond belief --Folantin 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fireplace's proposal is a step in the right direction, because instead of forking, he's proposing a relevance standard. I am not quite clear, however, how he concluded that the Apocalypse Now example passes the test. Can you articulate the standard in a neutral way, so that there's a reasonably high probability that different editors would reach the same conclusion? If you can't, then the likely outcome is that each editor will simply include his or her favourite trivia. Indeed, that's why these "trivia" sections have gotten to be the way they are now. Marc Shepherd 17:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Apocalypse Now case meets the standard because it's a famous use in one of the most critically acclaimed films. Unlike, say, a minor reference in Grand Theft Auto III.

There will be borderline cases (as always) and we can be inclusionistic about them, but this or something like it is sufficient to slash the clear cases of trivial trivia. Fireplace 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I AGREE with the proposal. Each time we make any significant changes to the trivia section, it would be a good idea to make a reference to this discussion on the Talk section of that article so that anyone reverting (or adding inappropriate material)without reading or acknowledging the policy can have it drawn to his/her attention. Vivaverdi 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added Fireplace's text to the main project page (item 10.9) so i hope we can now consider it policy (a policification?). Of course if someone wants to suggest improvements to the wording, that's fine, (though IMO it is well expressed as it is). - Kleinzach 05:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The trivia discussion (above) has brought this to my attention: there needs to be, not only consistansy within the Trivia section, but the entire structure of the articles as well (for at least the major operas). Like, there is no reason why Carmen should have so much information, Tosca have tons of information on totally different information areas, and La Bohème have almost nothing at all. I suggest (not only for the trivia section, but for all sections) that there be some sort of structure guide line. Of course, some categories can be unique to a particular opera, but they must seem to be from the same "series". Just a thought. --Doublea 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a structure guide, check out the project page. If individual operas don't follow it, I don't think that's a huge deal, although it would be nice if all the articles on significant operas were more complete. In short, {{sofixit}}. Mak (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The passage Mak refers to is this:

"Articles may be divided into an introduction, performance history, list of roles, synopsis of the action, and a list of recordings - as appropriate to the opera. (An example of this arrangement is Il campiello.) . . . The performance history may indicate the popularity of the work and the regularity with which it is performed (in the world as whole) - again as appropriate . . . When available, it's helpful to include the cast at the premiere(s) in the list of roles. See the Parsifal article for an example of standard formatting."

Some of us having been working to this general format. - Kleinzach 13:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether a suitably edited version of the "opera" template ought to be on the "List of..." pages which we are currently collectively working on, rather than on their Talk pages. This would alert non-members of the Project to the discussions and votes that we've been having, and to the need to justify any additions, and might stop them adding their favourite composer or opera to the list without thinking harder about it and checking what's been done recently. Today, Kleinzach quite correctly reverted the addition of Louise to the List of important operas, but, unless the anonymous editor had looked at the Talk page, (s)he would not have known that annotations are required and that votes have been taken - and would have had to have looked at Talk:List of important operas/Archive3 to find out that Louise had got the chop on 23 June by a 2-0 vote! --GuillaumeTell 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea; it would also help in the promotion of the OperaProject.--Doublea 03:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While I take your point, I think there is a well-established rule that project templates go on the Talk pages. Meladina was putting his Russian opera templates on his article pages and there were objections from at least a couple of people. I think the reason is to avoid clutter on the article pages. - Kleinzach 04:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea, but Meladina's ones got ruthlessly cut. I think that the same would happen here. It seems to be settled policy to only allow project templates on talk pages (though I'm not quite sure what the reason is; it might be a good idea to find out). Best, Moreschi 10:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Donizetti is still the composer of the monthe because something or somebody called Tawkerbot2 is automatically blocking any changes to the "To do" list. - 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it's fixed now. Mak (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know you could despatch bots. Impressive. - Kleinzach 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who should we have in September? Some previous candidates: Offenbach, Rossini, Richard Strauss and Verdi. Any new ones? - Kleinzach 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lully. Mak (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd back Lully. It should be possible to have decent articles on all 15 (?) of Lully's operas by the end of next month. --Folantin 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lully sounds good. --Moreschi 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. I will vote for Lully as well in order to wrap this up. I'll put a note on the main page. - Kleinzach 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Phaedriel/Soundtrack of Wikipedians. I've posted one or two starters just off the top of my head; I thought this might be a rare bit of fun for some of us to indulge in. Favourite arias, anyone...Best, Moreschi 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I wonder if this is a good place for it. Maybe we should start a page of personally-recommended recordings (desert island discs?) linked off the Opera Project itself? Perhaps called Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Members' recordings or something like that . . . . It might be a way of personalizing the project. - Kleinzach 09:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, peer review for pre-operatic (Monteverdi wrote for them) group Concerto delle donne at Wikipedia:Peer review/Concerto delle donne/archive1. Any comments would be very much appreciated! Mak (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some contributions to articles on The Medium and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and added an article on Facing Goya. I just thought I'd give everyone the heads-up about them.Scottandrewhutchins 23:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and welcome to the Opera Project - the most dynamic arts project on WP! - Kleinzach 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also see you have added Winnie Böwe and Hilary Summers to the 'Can you help?' section. I wonder why you think these two merit articles and listing alongside some very famous artists? - Kleinzach 11:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, welcome indeed. I hope that you enjoy editing the opera articles: I think you'll find that there's plenty of work to be done! Moreschi

On a separate note, I'm off on holiday today and won't be back until the 27th. This means complete wikibreak (Arggh...!). I'm sorry that I won't be able to do much for Gluck month, but I'll be back for Lully. Happy editing, all! Cheers, Moreschi 10:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC) (Oh, and Meladina is also off until the end of August, so no one need take over copy-editing duties)

There's a trend in opera-related articles not to cite sources (I'm very guilty of this). Reasons might be that opera articles tend to be non-controversial, that project contributors are usually reliable editors who've done their homework, or just laziness. But WP:V applies and readers deserve sources. Since most of us have Grove, some website, or some book on hand as we edit, it's easy enough to include it in the article. I'm going to make a conscious effort to cite from now on (I usually use the <ref> tag system). Fireplace 02:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It would be good practice to try to have at least one citation on each page. - Kleinzach 22:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

An edit war has populated wikipedia with more junk articles than I have ever seen. I can't even figure out how it happened. Pages that redirect to themselves, Orphaned talk pages, all sorts of gross errors. For instance: Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers Talk:List_of_composer_of_opera and several whole-scale dupes of the main article. List of opera composers considered major, for instance.

How on earth did this happen? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything should be pointing to the right place now. Let me know if I missed something. - EurekaLott 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nunquam Dormio has added a Notable recordings section to I puritani which consists of BBC Radio 3 recommendations (Building a Library). Is this appropriate - leaving aside the question of copyright - or should this material go in an External Links section? I've left a note for Mr ND but have had no reply. - Kleinzach 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only the first two of the recordings are shown on the BBC site. I'd remove the reference in the article to the BBC, and the link to the BBC site as well - it doesn't go straight to the Puritani recommendations and it's not very easy to provide a link that does. And, FWIW, the Sutherland and Callas recordings (but not the Caballe one) are also those chosen by Peter G Davis in The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera. --GuillaumeTell 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have removed the links. Thanks. - Kleinzach 13:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)