Talk:Maritana

Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer')
I'm unsure of the meaning of the first performance cast list entry: Elizabeth Rainforth ('Emma Romer'). They're distinct people (i.e. Elizabeth Rainforth (1814-77) vs Emma Romer (1814–1868)) ... so what's the meaning of the entry in this table? Did both of them play the part (e.g. in diferent acts, as we see on The Bohemian Girl? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They both played the role, but I'm not sure if one was first, or perhaps they alternated casts or, as you suggest, acts. See this.  This 22 November review has Romer in the role.  But I do not see the original cast list, or a clear explanation of why two women are listed in the title role.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
A user recently added an infobox to this article (and all of the Wallace operas), which I reverted per WP:BRD. I object to the addition of an infobox in this article, and the user who added the article has already driven many experienced editors from the Wikipedia project with this repeated and frankly nasty tactic, including User:Tim riley and User:SchroCat. I guess she wants to see more productive and experienced editors leave. I had hoped she was ashamed of herself and would stop, but here she is back with this nasty behavior. While sports and certain other articles can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

More a difference of opinion over infoboxes I think, Gerda obviously sees it as an improvement. The infobox would have limited value in my own opinion, though I personally don't like the side nav templates either.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am really surprised and disappointed to see that Gerda has sought to add an infobox here without any prior discussion - she well knows the controversy and needless waste of time that can result from this. I thought we had all grown up beyond this sort of provocation. For what it is worth, I am in complete agreement with the arguments against an infobox adduced by Ssilvers above.--Smerus (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers and everything else above. I would oppose any form of infobox in this article and hope that its absence will prevent controversy in the future. JAG UAR   11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also oppose. Gerda's edit summary says "try infobox". Well, she has tried it and seen the reaction. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose infobox. Seems clear; infobox tried and removed...Modernist (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the addition of an infobox to this article for the reasons given above by Ssilvers.Smeat75 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have restored the summarily removed infoboxes to the Wallace articles which I created and for which I was the principal editor—The Desert Flower, Lurline, and The Amber Witch. I am in the process of adding infoboxes to all the articles on operas which I have created. If someone else adds them first, it's fine by me. At the time they were created we had no suitable infobox for operas, although one has since been developed by Wikiproject Opera and is now used in over 350 articles on individual operas. A relevant image from the opera is appropriate and an improvement. The basic facts at a glance, are helpful to some readers, and certainly not detrimental to the article or other readers in any way. I assume none of you will accuse me of employing a, engaging in and  by re-adding it to the articles I created. And frankly, I find that kind of rhetoric most unconstructive. Obviously, if the rest of you feel that having one is such an outrage in this article, it's up to you, but your arguments based on boiler-plate objections are extremely weak and irrelevant to these particular articles. These are relatively obscure 19th century operas. What kind of "fancruft" is going to be added? There is nothing in the infobox to update. Why on earth should this simple box which includes only the key salient facts, composer, librettist, language, premiere date, and source work (none of which are ambiguous, subject to change, or needing contextualization) discourage anyone from reading the article? What is wrong with repetition when the lede replicates (or should replicate) the key facts? Repetition is standard in WP articles. What hypothetical editors are going to be "deterred" from editing an article like this one? Not any article, but this one? Seriously? And while you're at it, note that nowhere in the lede does it currently state the key fact (not "factoid") of the date and place of the premiere. You might want to fix that. Obviously none of you thought about fixing that glaring omission. What "deterred" you? Clearly not the presence of a completely innocuous infobox, not before its addition, nor after its summary removal. Voceditenore (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC) (Further text added by Voceditenore (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Never mind, I have now added the missing date and place of the premiere to the lede for you. Perhaps the rest of you, now that you are freed from the dreaded infobbox and can edit "undeterred" by its scary code might wish to improve the referencing. It's sub-optimal to say the least, not only in terms of the sources themselves, but also in terms of the very poor formatting which omits the minimally acceptable bibliographic details. And what about its critical reception? Or perhaps you all think your work is done here, now that you have successfully shot down the infobox? Bravi tutti... Voceditenore (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your improvements to the article, but you seem blissfully unaware of the deplorable and despicable history of the editor referred to. Here is an example of the fruits of her labors at Wikipedia. Neither I, nor afaik any of the other editors commenting above make it a practice to remove infoboxes from stable articles (or against the wishes of the article's creators), while she and her cronies systematically and stealthily have continued to add the boxes to stable articles, including FAs, even after ArbCom punished them for doing so, against the wishes of the main editors of the articles. As for your substantive arguments for infoboxes, we have answered them ad nauseum (see Talk:Noel Coward archives, for example), but it seems evident that if one discusses a simple fact in the body of the article (such as the name of the librettist) AND repeats it in the Lead, as required by WP:LEAD, that it is not necessary to repeat it again in an infobox.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not of the backstory here which has now reached the stage of very acrimonious personal feuds and quite blatant personal attacks. It is extremely regrettable, and I gave evidence to that effect at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Not a lot has changed since then. If anything, it's got worse. However, I am talking about adding an opera infobox to articles on these particular Wallace operas and nothing else. I am not interested in attacking other editors for their past behaviour or perpetuating personal feuds.  That is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, and I will not indulge in it. In my view, your arguments are extremely weak with respect to these particular articles which is entirely different from adding a biographical infobox to Noel Coward. In any case, your arguments are now reduced to the "repetition" canard. The Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't have a problem with "repetition" via infoboxes . Nor does the Australian Dictionary of Biography . But obviously, we must agree to disagree here, although I do agree on the ad nauseum characterisation. I have nothing more to say here. By all means keep that clunky, redundant navbox sitting at the top of the article and chalk it up as a "victory". Voceditenore (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maritana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021135805/http://glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/1562.php to http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/1562.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Australian genesis
The story or tradition that parts of Maritana were written in New Norfolk, Tasmania, or even Sydney, does not merit inclusion in the article, but may be worth mentioning here, along with its falsification. Doug butler (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not merit inclusion in the article. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Entirely concur that this doesn't merit inclusion in the article. Someone asserts on no evidence whatever that while the composer was in Australia for a few weeks he composed some of the music and someone else then sets out in careful detail why the assertion is nonsense. There is no case at all for dragging in such trivia.  Tim riley  talk   18:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)