Talk:Outline of opera/Archive 1

Introductory definition of opera
The present introduction seems inadequate and written from a non-opera POV:

''Opera is a form of theatre in which the drama is conveyed wholly or predominantly through music and singing. Opera uses many of the elements of spoken theatre such as scenery, costumes, and acting, but opera is distinguished from other dramatic forms by the importance of song. The singers are accompanied by a musical ensemble ranging from a small instrumental ensemble to a full symphonic orchestra. Opera may also incorporate dance.''

I am going to edit this to the following (below) but I am putting both versions here for discussion.

''Opera is one of the performing arts, alongside music, dance and drama, and its special character as an art form derives from combining elements of the other performing arts, together with visual effects. The performance of opera is invariably live and in a specially-equipped opera house or theatre. It is normally (electronically) unamplified to order to feature the beauty of the natural voice. While the scale of opera can be larger or smaller - there are many different genres of opera - performance typically involves different types of artist (singers, instrumentalists and often dancers and actors) and technical staff. Usually an orchestra led by a conductor accompanies the singers. In contrast to spoken theatre, the opera world is international. German, French, Italian and English works are performed world-wide in their original languages, and artists travel from country to country performing."

Hope this helps! -- Kleinzach 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of name from 'List of basic opera topics'
Why has the name of this article be changed? Topical means 'applied on the skin', 'of interest at the present time' and 'relating to or arranged by topics'. I guess the third is meant here, but isn't the use of an ambiguous term bad English? -- Klein zach  05:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved it back. The introduction should be changed too and taken from the current intro to the main Opera article. --Folantin (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the present intro - but then I wrote it. But equally I have no objection to using the intro to Opera which is widely accepted now. Of course, there are also lots of other things that also need attention on this page . . . -- Klein zach  08:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The name has been changed back again. Can we have an explanation of why this bad English is being imposed on this article? -- Klein zach  23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it again. I see no discussion on the talk page here. I find the title "Topical outline of opera" barely makes sense. It reads like a machine translation. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. List of basic opera topics is a much clearer title than Topical outline of opera.Nrswanson (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on User:The Transhumanist's talk page but I've had no response. -- Klein zach  15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. This page belongs to a set of pages, part of Wikipedia's table of contents system, and the titles of all the pages in the set have been standardized by community consensus at the Village pump.  If you wish to make an exception, you'll have to present a proposal at the Village pump.


 * The set used to be called Lists of basic topics but they have all been changed to Topical outlines. Lists of basic topics no longer exist on Wikipedia.  They've been deprecated.  The reason "topical outline" was chosen was because "outline" by itself was ambiguous (for example, the "outline of Italy" is the shape of a boot).  But "topical outline" isn't ambiguous, because who in their right minds would interpret it as rubbing an outline on your skin.  It doesn't make any sense to interpret it that way.  A google search reveals that "topical outline" is in widespread use, and never gets interpreted as having anything to do with skin.  Eventually, we may be able to simplify the titles to "outline of", once the set of country outlines is completed, because it will be instantly obvious that those pages are not about a tracing of the borders of the respective countries.  By the way, my proposal was for "Outline of", but the community wished a compromise.  And so there you have it.


 * One of the main reasons that the pages were renamed is because of the term "basic". People kept coming along questioning what is and is not basic, and how the authors went about determining whether or not a topic was basic - and they wanted references showing "basicness".  If you'd like to retain the name "basic", you'll be asked to provide references for each topic proving that they are indeed basic.  Because WP:VER states that references need to be provided for items challenged or likely to be challenged.  And because "basic" has been challenged on other basic topic lists, it is likely to be challenged here (especially by me, because the questioners of "basic" finally convinced me to propose the name change to remove this problem in the first place).


 * The format used by this article is the one developed for the set the page belongs to. But if the name is changed so it no longer matches the set, the tendency of editors would be to rename it again so it matched the set (creating an ongoing conflict between you and them), or it might be removed from the set, creating a hole in the set's topic coverage.


 * Either would be a big problem, and would likely end up before RfC or the Village pump, which would be an unfortunate waste of time, and would likely result in the community reasserting its decision in favor of the set and keeping this page together with the standardized names.


 * If you do decide to make a proposal, please find all the references for every basic topic in place, because that will be the main point of contention.


 * I defended "basic" for almost 2 years, and was as frustrated by the whole thing as you, but I finally got tired of defending the term "basic topics". I couldn't beat 'em, so I joined 'em. ;)


 * I'm renaming the title back, so it matches the set. I'm also placing announcements at the Topical outlines WikiProject, and on the Topical outlines talk page (the talk page belonging to the set), which this page belongs to, and at the Contents project, which this page is part of.


 * Please do not rename the page again, until a new consensus has been reached at the above mentioned projects, or the Village pump. Thank you.


 * The Transhumanist 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Three editors including myself have expressed dissatisfaction over bad English in the title. I'm particularly disappointed that you didn't read my comments above. Let me repeat what I said: Topical means 'applied on the skin', 'of interest at the present time' and 'relating to or arranged by topics'. In your comments above to refer to skin application but not to the common use of this word meaning up-to-date, current, of interest today. That is the meaning that will confuse readers here. An unadvertized, uncentralized discussion at the Village Pump can't justify the wrong use of language. If you have a serious desire to develop these articles, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by starting off with a silly, nonsensical title. -- Klein zach  07:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What Kleinzach said. The title is barely English. It suggests an "outline of opera in current affairs" to me. A handful of editors at Village Pump cannot overrule good English usage. It's pretty obvious what the basic topics of opera are and they're on this page. Nobody has ever questioned this (and I don't think you could question it now without violating WP:POINT). If other pages have problems, then that's not our concern. I will continue to revert any changes which do not make good sense in English. --Folantin (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, "up-to-date, current, and of interest today" applies pretty well, since who wants an out-of-date encyclopedia? But googling the term "topical outline" shows that the term is interpreted as a compound noun, and when the word "topical" is paired with the word "outline" its context is well established.  It is very obvious that the term topical as used in the title means "relating to or arranged by topics" The Transhumanist  14:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed the name to "List of important opera terminology" as I felt that per the discussion here that name would be a good temporary title until a more suitable one is agreed upon. Of course we may decide to keep this title. Regardless, lets stop the edit wars and talk this out please.Nrswanson (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be at "List of opera topics". The neutrality obsessives will go crazy over the word "important", trust me. Plus, "terminology" doesn't quite fit this page. --Folantin (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. I will move it.Nrswanson (talk) 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like this page may have been protected as i can not move it.Nrswanson (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get an admin to deal with it. BTW "Operatic terminology" (arias, libretto etc.) is dealt with here .--Folantin (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do, and as soon as possible. "Important" is just the worse possible choice in terms of subjectivity. And this article is not just about terminology. The current title is badly phrased and totally misleading as to its contents. Hungarian opera, an important piece of opera terminology? Geeesh! ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the only possible "neutral" title is "List of opera topics". It should be reasonably easy for us to offer links to all our general articles about opera on one page, so no selection will be necessary. It also shows us which gaps need to be filled (I was working on "Czech opera" earlier this year - maybe I'll finish it one day). PS: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "outline" means "verbal description of essential parts only". You still have to define what's "essential" there. The selection problem remains. --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is unsourced
The article violates WP:VER and WP:OR, and is the subjective opinion of those who wrote it. The Transhumanist 14:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you not to violate WP:POINT above and you've gone straight ahead. Your behaviour is now the subject of discussion at WP:ANI.--Folantin (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate WP:POINT. The article violates two of Wikipedia's core policies.  Enforcing those is the highest priority on Wikipedia.  The issue of the article's title and the sourcability problem it causes are inseparable.  The Transhumanist  15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah right. Well, in that case we change it to "List of opera topics" and the evil word "basic" goes away. --Folantin (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can compromise and allow "Outline of opera", it will help pave the way for the removal of "topical" from the rest of the set. I can't stand that word either, and it would be nice if we could work together to arrive at a mutually agreed upon solution.  But "list" is ambiguous, because on Wikipedia we have "structured lists", "alphabetical lists", and unsorted lists.  It would be nice if the title gave some indication of the type of list it was.  "Structured list" is basically a synonym for "outline".  Anyhow, please think it over.  The Transhumanist  22:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous that sources had to be shoved into headings. WP:V is a chief policy, yes, but not one that we should just haphazardly follow. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The moving war
This is becoming rediculous The Transhumanist and Folantin. Although these moves aren't technically reversions they certainly violate the spirit of the three revert rule. In this case, I believe The Transhumanist should defer to the current majority on this talk page and leave the page as List of basic opera topics while a potential name change is discussed further. I have found and cited sources naming these terms as important/essential terminology within the field of opera. Whether that counts as "basic" I don't know. I would assume it would but then I'm not the one having issues with the word. We could rename it as List of important opera terms under current citations. That seems to me to be a more accurate description than either of the two names currently in use. I personally feel that the word outline is a bad word compared to list as these "basic list" pages are structured like lists with a series of links as opposed to an outline which assumes a certain kind of structure not present in these articles (including this one). Nrswanson (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is a hierarchical treatment of the subject, and therefor it fits the definition of "outline". But you are right, this issue wasn't worth the effort.  I've never even been to an opera.  :)  The Transhumanist  23:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. An outline infers that the there is a discussion or summary covering the main points of a subject. In this case no such discussion/summary of the subject as a whole is made. This is merely a list of important concepts within the field of opera.Nrswanson (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Transhumanist had no business moving it to "Outline of opera" in the first place. He claims he had consensus from ANI but the discussion there clearly shows several editors believe "Outline of X" is no more "neutral" than "List of basic X topics". I moved it to the more "neutral" "List of opera topics", which is perfectly accurate. "I've never even been to an opera". Then why are you editing this page? --Folantin (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

references on section headers
Quick note for the record: the references got removed from section headers because of Village_pump_(technical). If you have to re-add a reference, then please try not to add it to the section header for obvious reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks I thought it was a little over the top too but The Transhumanist put a fact tag after every single link (which I felt was rediculous). So rather than put a reference after every link I put it in the section header.Nrswanson (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)