Talk:Dennis O'Neill (tenor)

Move to Dennis O'Neill
I have moved this article from Dennis O'Neil (tenor) to Dennis O'Neill as this is the correct spelling for the artist, see Dennis O'Neill website. Seth Whales 10:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Of course when I started the page as I did, all the links I checked were misspelt too - including one by the BBC. I wondered why I couldn't find a website for him! I updated the disambiguation link in the comic writer 'Dennis O'Neil' page, and the old 'tenor' page has completely gone now (redirection and all) - it even jumps straight to the new page if you type the old title in. --Matt Lewis 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Déjà vu
I must have been thinking of starting the page about the same time of your first contribution, well done Matt!!! I have added a basic Infobox, but please add extra content to it...a Public Domain photo would be nice too. Seth Whales 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I have removed the musical artist infobox as per WikiProject OperaVoceditenore (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current infobox contains erroneous information:
 * Dennis O'Neill is not a record producer. He is an opera singer and voice teacher
 * His label is not Decca. He records primarily with Chandos Records. He appears on Decca only once as a guest singer in a recorded live concert by Kiri te Kanawa (who is a Decca artist).


 * Perhaps one of those who reverted my removal of the musicians' infobox, can amend the occupation and label fields. I'm afraid, this is one of the problems with editors adding infoboxes wholesale to articles where they know nothing or very little about the actual subject. As I said before, these infoboxes are inappropriate for opera singers and classical musicians. See the policy at WikiProject Musicians: "Infobox Musical artist is the standard template to be used on a non-classical musician's or musical ensemble's page" and at the Opera Project.Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've included the correct information you have given above. I may well agree about appropriateness, but consensus comes first - with which I can see you agree. If you had that information I don't understand why you didn't just include it in the prose? You'd have had a better argument for box removal if it jarred with the text! --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is bit of ping pong starting with the info box. I'm not actually a huge fan of info boxes (I prefer sticking to prose) - but Dennis is only an opera singer - he's not a controversial figure, so I was happy myself when Seth Whales (the other main contributor so far) included it. Why are you guys removing it? I must say - I found the opera Wikiproject page referred to rather unpleasantly grouchy, and the reasons given in the edit notes for removal even rude. Not a great spirit guys! The disambiguation link was lost with the last removal - so please be more careful too.


 * If you have a new 'opera style' box to replace it then excellent (I think that’s your aim?) - but to remove someone else’s valid work without having something to replace it with will be seen as running before you can walk to some (hence the ping pong). Whatever your reasons are for removing it, it’s surely more respectful to outline them here, before directing people over to Wikiproject. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not remove the simple infobox added by Seth Whales (nor did I make any rude comments in the edit summary). I removed the one which User:Mickey_gfss2007 had replaced it with (without noting it in the edit summary or mentioning it on the talk page). It is one designed for non-classical musicians with inappropriate fields, and worse, with inaccurate information. Having said that, the "Famous works" field in the original box was also misleading. That field refers to works created by the article's subject. Dennis O'Neill has performed and recorded the Verdi Requiem, but it isn't one of his "works". It's one of Giuseppe Verdi's works.


 * As for the Opera Project's aim, no we do not intend to develop an infobox, and it has been discussed extensively both within the project and with other projects, which is why the Musicians' Project states that their infobox (the one currently used in this article) is for non-classical artists. Classical musicians and composers' careers do not lend themselves to the kind of (over)simplification that infoboxes require. The removal of fields that can produce misleading or inaccurate information results in a mere repetition of what is already in the lead paragraph (or should be). But if you and the original author think it adds positively to the article, fine. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just removed the infobox again for the reasons explained patiently and in full by Voceditenore above. I hope the views of editors working in this area will be respected and the infobox will not be posted again. Thank you for your understanding. -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You talk of respect and patience? What's with you people? For the second time someone has clumsily removed my disambiguation link to the American Dennis O'Neil - therefore (for the second time) I'm going to undo it. What do you expect?


 * The fact I created this page doesn't signify much, but I am due some respect as a humble editor - as is Seth Whales who took the time to make the box, and the guy who came in and replaced it when it was removed. I feel like we've been slightly bullied by some rather lawless Inspector Morse types! I work for consensus because I see it as the law of Wikipedia - and I'm not interested in divas who make arrogant posts like the one above! You might think you're being 'wry' – where I come from we just see it as the rudeness it clearly is.


 * Voceditenore showed that he believes in consensus and entered a dialogue (another rule of the game - not some kind of act of ‘genteel mercy’), and I took the time to include his corrective suggestions for the info box (which, as I've said above, I'm not actually even a great fan of) - so don't remove my work or waste my time in such a bloody rude way. Got that? "Thank you for your understanding." --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt Lewis: There are two Wikipedia policy documents that you need to read. One is called Ownership which explains that no-one 'owns' Wikipedia articles. The other is Civility which describes the way we need to behave here for our work to be productive. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't tell me what I need to read. I said it doesn't signify much that I created the page - but I deserve respect as a humble editor. So don't be sanctimonious with me. Civility has not even touched your collective arrogance. Sometimes stronger words are required. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He is an opera singer + we in Project opera WikiProject Opera have agreed not to have infoboxes for all opera singers. Matt Lewis, you talked about respect and patience, if you do have the respect and patient to many people in here, do not not put the infobox. Look at other opera singer articles, they all don’t have the infobox. So, what makes this singer different from them all? I do not understand why you are so eager with Dennis O’Neil infobox only. If he is a Jazz or pop singer, you won’t be seeing us talking about this. Thanks. - Jay (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem! Looks like someone’s saved your bacon by reinserting the disambiguation link - I came on to deservedly flame grill you for removing it again! (and for your above post - which you've clearly written without reading a thing)!


 * By the way - suggesting you have consensus in the fashion you have just done is frowned upon. None of you have actually contributed to the article - you have all appeared just to remove the info box! Not great form - and I'm buggered if I'm going to be brow beaten in that way, or clear up any mess you leave, like the missing link. Not when you have done NOTHING positive! It's just the arrogant behaviour that's upset me so much - I'm not particularly bothered about the box at all, as I've said twice before (though I might feel obliged to support it if it becomes an issue). What gets me is that it's clearly up to us exisiting editors to write Voceditenore's correct information into the prose, and to improve the article in general - so what is gained by treating us like crap? Hopefully some of you will have learnt a little about the magic word respect anyway. It this flairs up again (and I'm hoping it won't) I suggest you use it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I can see how you would find the accidental removal of the disambiguation link by subsequent editors annoying and rightly so. They should have been more careful. But I just want to point out that my first edit, to remove the new infobox did not remove the link. I was very careful about that. . In that edit, in addition to removing the new infobox, I edited the article's text for clarity and accuracy of the written expression, punctuation, links. I continued to do so in the subsequent one. . I noted it in both edit summaries. I also provided you with information to at least correct the most glaring errors in the new infobox. I did not 'hit and run', and would have added yet more information to the article. I have seen Dennis O'Neill perform twice at the Royal Opera House in Pagliacci and La Juive. But I back off from articles that are having an edit war, and especially when the talk page becomes so unpleasant with accusations and counter-accusations, as this one has.

I'll give you the background to this. Two days ago Mickey_gfss2007 started a wholesale campaign to add infoboxes. He did it to two articles on my watchlist. I then checked his contributions and noted that he/she had done this to several other opera singer articles. In all cases, it was obvious he/she knew nothing about the subjects to whom he was adding the boxes and in fact had never contributed a single word to the articles. The information contained in the boxes was also wrong and sometimes fanciful. He used 'Decca' as a stock record company, and 'record producer' as a stock occupation. He also listed José Cura's occupation as 'actor', simply because the article stated he was "a compelling actor" in his opera roles. I then checked that editor's talk page and found that he/she was adding unsourced, inaccurate information to other types of infoboxes as well. It was also pointed out to him/her that he was repeatedly causing problems with the 'origin' fields of the infoboxes and continuing to add flags to them which is strongly deprecated.. At that point, I removed the infoboxes from the five opera singer articles that he had added them to. One of them was this one. When Mickey_gfss2007 then immediately reverted my edits on all those articles, I mentioned the problem on the talk page at the Opera Project. We did not single you out for an invasion.

You have said yourself that you are not particularly in favour of infoboxes. I'm not sure why you are insisting on keeping one which:
 * clutters up the page
 * is contrary to the format for other opera singer articles
 * merely repeats information that should be in the lead paragraph
 * carries a flag in the 'origin' field which is against Wikipedia's current policy
 * and is still inaccurate.

As I said above, Dennis O'Neill is not signed to the Decca label and appears on only one recording as a guest artist in a Kiri te Kanawa concert which was released on video. He also appears on EMI, Kultur, Naxos, Nimbus recordings. He probably doesn't even have an exclusive contract with Chandos, but at least it's the label on which he has recorded the most frequently. It's a small, but typical example of why these infoboxes don't work well for classical musicians and how the oversimplification they generate actually misleads rather than helps the reader.

If you are opposing the removal of the infobox simply to make a point, it strikes me as an odd way to work towards improving the article, and a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. When (and if) the dust settles here, I'll come back in a few weeks to expand the article and correct some of the misleading information that still exists in the actual text. But for now I'm signing off. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Postscript. For the record, no one from the Opera Project removed Seth Whales' original infobox. As you can see from the article's history, the original infobox was summarily removed (along with some of the information it contained) and replaced with a different one by Mickey_gfss2007 in a single edit, without noting it in the edit summary or discussing it on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Voceditenore - I appreciate that you started it in a better way. It's a shame it then went the way it did (I wasn’t involved at the start, of course). But I just don't get why you are now questioning why I'm 'insisting' on keeping this info box? I never have been!! Like Jimbo Wales, I don't particularly like them - and I don't mind either way about this one. On the whole, uniformity is better - but I'm wary of uniformity in places like Wikipeida, so I'm never insistent on it. I don't like this arrogant scolding of me as if I'm a bad editor - I'm simply not - I'm as proud as anyone else here - so why put me down? It's arrogance from a wobbly moral highground to me - I just don't respect it.


 * All I have done is make 2 undo's for the sake of the mistakenly removed disambiguation link - and I have explained why each time. I shouldn't have had to have made either. The page took me a while to initially construct, and I’ve had every right to do it - as you've said. I've also explained repeatedly that I'm happy with there being no info box here at all! But I've also said that I prefer consensus to wikiproject rules - and that I may back an info box if enough people have good reasons for it (it doesn't look like this will happen now, and as I’ve said before - that's a good thing!).


 * I've kept the same line throughout. I just don't like being spoken down to - and as a person I will ALWAYS 'give it back' if some form of self-imposed ‘authority’ even slightly puts me down. I just don’t take it. I wanted to tell you all that you would have faired better if your attitude was better - so I have. I've also seen Dennis O'Neill - with the masses in Cardiff bay. I have never forgotten it and it inspired me to create the page. I just don't like being spoken down to, simple as. I’m out too, anyway. Good luck on your edits and box conformity. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)