Talk:Zhenitba

Article Title
Why is this article not called The Marriage (opera)? No one but a Mussorgsky expert or an opera fan fluent in Russian would refer to this work as Zhenitba. I love Russian as much as anybody. But we might as well write it in Cyrillic. We don't have a Sorochinskaya Yarmarka article, nor do we have a Die Zauberflöte article. This clearly more obscure work should not be an exception. I would not support moving Khovanshchina to The Khovansky Affair. That would be asinine. But maintaining the title of this article as Zhenitba seems elitist and ridiculous. I support migrating this article to The Marriage (opera), or, if necessary, The Marriage (Mussorgsky). Ivan Velikii 06:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Recordings table per WikiProject Opera guidelines. Types of recordings noted (LP, CD, etc)
The format was changed to reflect these guidelines found in all other opera articles. The arbitrary revert has been re-reverted. Do not make any further changes without discussing your reasons here.Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Editor User talk:50.39.178.94 objects to the reverting of his preferred format. The section has been returned to its original form.  This is the place (not my "talk" page) where he/she needs to justify his/her opinion of how a "recordings" table should be set up.  Then discussion can follow.


 * Meanwhile, he/she should be aware of the fact that a group of editors involved with the WikiProject Opera have agreed on guidelines for what a recordings table should look like:
 * WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats


 * Every other opera article uses this format.


 * Any further reverting on his/her part without further discussion and consensus may be regarded as vandalism. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to the above section: Recordings table per WikiProject Opera
The difference of opinion involves two recordings tables &mdash; my original:

.. and the WikiProject Opera sanctioned version:

My rationale for my version of the recordings table is fully articulated here: User_talk:Viva-Verdi. The most relevant passage is as follows:  "A recordings table is ordered by date, therefore the date column should come first (we agree on this). The conductor, orchestra and chorus, etc. are, in most cases, a more valid and significant identifier of the recording, often locating the city of origin, than the cast of singers, and should therefore be the next column of information (this is particularly true of the works for which I created tables). When one wants to specify an opera recording, one speaks of, for example, the "1953 Furtwängler Tristan und Isolde", not the "1953 Flagstad Tristan", or the "1946 Bolshoy Theatre Boris Godunov", not the "1946 Mark Reyzen Boris", unless the context is specifically in reference to the role of Isolde or Boris.

While there are cases where the importance of a particular role and the stature of a particular singer completely eclipse the conductor and orchestra chosen for the recording, more often than not, the combined interpretive contributions of the conductor, orchestra, and chorus constitute the most concise specifier/identifier of the recording, more than any singer or cast. Die-hard opera fanatics may disagree with the above (because "it's all about the singers"), but I don't think we should cater to this minority."


 * One could just as readily talk of the Callas/Gobbi Tosca Viva-Verdi (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to make the following points:


 * 1) I added the first table a short time ago (May 27, 2012). Before I added the table, these articles (except Boris Godunov) featured bulleted lists.
 * You, user:Viva-verdi altered them, with the sole justification that they did not conform to WikiProject Opera specifications. Actually, they do mostly conform, the style and content being largely identical, with the exception of the placement of one column. This is the main issue here, the order of columns. I did, however, question why every table must be absolutely the same. It is worth noting that WikiProject Opera has alternative table styles listed on their specifications page. It seems that diversity is tolerated only when it is WikiProject Opera authored diversity.
 * 1) Wikipedia policies state that "WikiProjects do not own articles". Furthermore: "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles."
 * 2) It is only common sense that the editors who care most about these articles (shown by the volume and quality of edits) have a significant say in their evolution, and should not be at the mercy of a group of editors (WikiProject Opera) who have interests elsewhere, contribute very little to Russian opera, much less Mussorgsky, but nevertheless band together (safety in numbers), fight each other's fights whether they really care or not, and impose their preferences when their dominance is threatened or questioned, all under the egalitarian banner of "consensus". This attitude is shown, by you, Viva-Verdi, when you say "Return to format agreed upon by 15 or more editors of WikiProject Opera, not just the opinions of one 'Editor'" &mdash; as if to say, how dare one "editor" defy the almighty 15 members of WikiProject Opera. And note the careful use of quotation marks around 'editor', as if my true editor credentials are in question. This sounds like a personal attack. Has not power truly gone to your head(s)?
 * 3) Why is it that my reverting of your interference constitutes "vandalism", but your reverts do not? You really do not like your 'ownership' of these articles challenged, so much so that you bend the meaning of the English language and demonize editors who have a different opinion.
 * 4) Either Wikipedia policies stand for something or they do not. I fear they they do not. I anticipate that the very individuals who will decide this matter are the members of WikiProject Opera who, if they are like User:Viva-Verdi, can hardly be counted upon to be fair and unbiased, but will protect their turf at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.178.94 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)