Template talk:Infobox opera/Archive 1

Draft
I've started a draft. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An immediate problem here - most (but for some reason not all) operas articles are under native name: therefore native name comes first, English name (if different) should come after. (Also: why native name language?) Also - what is meant by 'other name'? Where an opera has a subtitle ('Don Giovanni o il dissoluto punito') that will only look confusing in an infobox - such info belongs in the text. --Smerus (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "other name" field could be useful in some cases (albeit rare ones). For example Il falegname di Livonia. Its full name was Il falegname di Livonia, o Pietro il grande, czar delle Russie, but some reference works refer to it as simply Pietro il grande. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps full_name would be better? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I was referriing to the rare cases of an opera having two different native names, e.g. either Il falegname di Livonia or Pietro il grande. That opera is called sometimes by one and sometimes by the other in reference works, recordings, and published score titles. Voceditenore (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The rationale for native_name_lang, which is not displayed, is explained in the documentation for lang. The parameter is used in all infoboxes with a native_name parameter. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Other issues:
 * "Native name"/"English name" is only useful when the opera has an official English name, e.g. Le nozze di Figaro/The Marriage of Figaro, as opposed to a convenience translation for the reader in the lede. Some operas do not have an English title, ever. They are never referred to by the literal English translation of the title and never performed under or published under a title translated into English.
 * The spelling should be "premiere date", not "premier".
 * It needs to include italic title so the addition of the box automatically italicizes the article title.

Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the usual title is not English, and there is no formal English name, then a translated_name may be appropriate. this is a wiki, so please feel free to change spellings. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK I've changed the spelling of premiere. I was a little reluctant to fool around with the template itself, as template code is not my forte and I didn't want to mess it up. Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your changes were fine. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, shouldn't the fields be "Native title" and "Other title" rather than "Native name" or "Other name"? These are works of art not people. Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with that if others agree. Perhaps keep the existing parameter names, for consistency with other templates, but change the displayed labels? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, just changing the displayed labels would be fine by me, but I do think the displayed labels should be changed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done (yesterday). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
I suggest to look at Infobox play, but also Infobox musical composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

General comment: I would try to avoid overlinking in the parameters (bold and blue is distracting), and overly long field names that take two lines, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an infobox for an opera requires elements from both types of infobox because it is a complex art form which combines both music and drama. It should also use the vocabulary that is correct for this subject, e.g. "Librettist" not "Text" for the field containing the name of the librettist. Agree re excessive linking in the field names. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I applaud the effort. I'd also like to suggest working the operas that don't easily fit into the categories as a way of refining the template. For example: operas by multiple composers or multiple librettists; operas whose text is in more than one language, operas that exist in multiple versions (revisions), etc. -- kosboot (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Multiple values can be entered using Plainlist. Where revisions are major, a second infobox can be used. We don't currently list the language in which the text is written; perhaps we should. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sound like a good idea, remembering the opera which was composed in Russian, first performed in Swedish, later in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the original language would be useful, often the title is not a good clue to that, e.g. Satyagraha, provided we stick to the original language only and don't start writing essays in the infobox about the other languages it was performed in along its career. Besides, it's standard on infoboxes for plays. (See La Tosca) Operas are plays as well as musical compositions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Added. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd leave out "Revisions" as a separate field, too messy for an infobox, and once again, an invitation to writing essays in the box. If anything, and provided they are major revisions, they can be listed under "Other titles", e.g. for Lucia di Lammermoor list Lucie de Lammermoor, for Don Carlos, list Don Carlo. I'd definitely leave out extra infoboxes in the article for each revision. Very intrusive on the layout for very little value. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Other titles" could include those of operas conceived i two languages from the start, such as "The English Cat/Die Englische Katze", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say so, provided you simply list the second title and don't start writing essays about it. Leave that to the article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of different versions of operas which are still performed, e.g. Boris Godunov, Ariadne auf Naxos, La forza del destino, Don Carlos, La siege de Corinth, etc. - there are quite a number of such works whose multiple versions get performances and recordings. -- kosboot (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's way too much detail for an infobox. That kind of minutiae belongs in the article where it can be explained and contextualised. The box should stick to key and basic facts only. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre, acts, source
Looking at the impressive sample, I would like to know if it's a singspiel or an opera seria, and how many acts it has, on what play by whom it is based, and if real personalities play a role, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Gerda's questions because I know that the designation that a composer gives to his work is often not "opera" but some other fanciful title (this is particularly true in the 19th century). Also, the source of a work can be complicated (it could be an amalgam of two works or a variety of sources). -- kosboot (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I'm sure you'd like the entire article in the infobox.:-) Kosboot is right, both the source(s) and the putative genre are often complicated issues, best left to the article. I would leave them out. Number of acts is OK (although it can vary with different versions), but I would personally keep this box very, very simple and idiot-proof. Also once you start adding more and more fields, the box can start interfering with the layout of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would leave exceptions, perhaps even versions, to the article. Elizabeth II shows how longer sections of one parameter can be collapsed. I would like to see genre (or however we call it), sometimes telling more about an opera than the title. For the Bach cantatas, sometimes it's a simple "church cantata", sometimes additionally "Christmas cantata" etc., --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we could have a "genre" field, and simply add the number of acts in that line without using a separate field for it e.g. "singspiel, 2 acts". But we'd need to write very clear instructions in the documentation that the field is not required and if potentially confusing, disputed, or complicated should simply be expressed as "opera, 2 acts". I think "genre" is OK as a field name and is the best one to use. I know you don't like links in the field names, Gerda, but if this one is used, it should definitely link to List of opera genres, given the specialised use of the term in opera. I'm also re-titling the heading here. Can we please use a clear description of what issues we are discussing in any one section. Otherwise the discussion becomes hopelessly muddled and hard to follow. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, the putative sources for the libretto and whether or not the opera is based on historical events or people should be left to the article. I feel quite strongly about this. Voceditenore (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Italic title
Is it possible to build Italic title into the box so that adding it automatically italicises the article title. The composer navboxes that are currently at the head of most article do that, e.g. Smyth operas. That would be very convenient. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Place of premiere
I think we should have this but could it be coded like Infobox person where birth_date and birth_place are listed but both appear in separate lines under the single visible field "Born"? Example:

Premiere 27 March 1786
 * Teatro della Pergola, Florence

Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done this, but on one line, with Timeline-event, which uses a long dash. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Catalogue
Looking at infobox musical composition, I suggest we also have room for a catalogue no, - Mozart's works have one, but it is not part of the title. The period doesn't need to be mentioned for him and other known composers, but for lesser known people it might make sense to see at a glance if it is Baroque or contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They can see at a glance from the date of the premiere what "period" of time the opera is from. I also think the catalogue numbers are unnecessary and overly detailed information for an opera infobox. The fact that The Marriage of Figaro is  K. 492 or La verità in cimento is  RV 739 in the composers' catalogues is utterly trivial information for anyone who wants to know about the opera. Gerda, the more you try to pack into an infobox, the more you try to turn it into a vertical article, the less value it has as a quick reference, and the more daunting it is to readers who are unacquainted with the area. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Define "they" (who "can see at a glance"). I am willing to serve those readers also (!) who (we may like it or not) read only the infobox. - I just had to post on ANI for the first time, strange feeling. As said there, I respect the other involved editors ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who reads only the infobox, the catalogue number for an opera is not remotely key or necessary information. Listing it there implies that it is and takes up yet another line. The fact that there is a discussion on ANI about the behaviour at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach is irrelevant to the discussion here or to this point. Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry that high emotions let me drop a line at the wrong place, it's a bit operatic, I see ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very sweeping statement; I doubt there's any evidence to support it. I can easily imagine a scenario where someone wants to find the catalogue number of a work, and referring to the infobox is the easiest way to do so. Not to mention that it will be available programmatically... Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre field label
I'm confused as to why the Type parameter generates the visible label "Genre" in Andy's examples with the Wikidemon, but when Gerda used the template here, the visible label was "Type", which is less than ideal. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been "type" for a while, could be genre, why not? In "musical composition" I changed "type" to "form", because it linked to Form (music). The documentation, including examples, needs to be updated when parameters are changed (note to self), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the contents of that article are not at all relevant to what we're talking about here. We are talking about genre, not the kind of "form", you're linking to. It should go back to showing the visible label "Genre". Voceditenore (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Opera infobox proposed contents

 * Transferred here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera with this edit

To the right is a type of opera infobox proposed by Gerda, but I am assuming that this would be similar to the type of thing she'd propose in any infobox. Comments please. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To the right is a sample of what an infobox might contain. infobox musical composition is used, because "opera" is still under construction. The discussion should be at the template talk of infobox opera, but I wanted at least to correct my silly mistakes here where I made them. Once getting more real, I would add the premiere singers and director, but collapse the complete premiere section, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction. It is confusing, over-detailed, misleading, and in places redundant.
 * 1. The performance history is too complex and cannot be sufficiently contextualized via these bullet points. It also ends up with the premiere date appearing twice, the second time devoted to the premiere separately in a huge chunk when the date and place could be listed in a single line. The conductor of the premiere is not important enough for basic key facts about the opera.
 * 2. Smerus can input more on this, but I feel it is misleading to call this a Grand opera in any of the versions of its score. This was one of the reasons why I suggested at the genre field should be very simple, i.e. "Opera (or maybe operetta in some cases) in X acts". Breaking it down into sub-genres requires contextualization and can lead to over-simplification and inaccuracy.
 * 3. The field should be Librettist not Libretto. The whole Performed should go completely per 1. but in any case, the field name is misleading. What does "Performed" mean? It's not transparent at all. This is not a Bach cantata.
 * 4. Operas are also theatrical performances, and the infobox should not necessarily be skewed to the musical composition aspect of it. If anything, it could have a Setting parameter, e.g. 19th century Seville.
 * 5. Do we really want to list the entire premiere cast in the infobox? My view would be no. It's bloat. The article has a proper role table, clearly laid out.

TLDR version: It should be restricted to very basic key points, easily visible and understandable, not an attempt to rewrite the article in a vertical box. Note to everyone else, the current proposal does not look like this at all. See Template: Infobox opera/doc. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Example for discussion On pop music pages the infobox shows a Single or Album within the chronology of the discography for that artist. An example can be seen here - the releases immediately before and after are presented. Something similar could be possible for operas, if wished  almost - instinct 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points, but please take to the discussion page of the new template. I chose to show the "Grand opera aspect" also because "comique" is true only for the first version. I chose "Libretto" because "Librettist" looks wrong when there are two, and I don't like "Librettist(s)" ;) But that also should be discussed at the special talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

''All the above transferred here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera with this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)''

As much as I would like plenty of information in the infobox, I admit this does look cluttered. I'm generally in favor of restricting the information to the first performance (and that goes for genre at the first performance, too). After just trying to formulate a justification, I even come down to just the first performance (despite cases where the subsequent version of the opera is the more well-known one, e.g. Macbeth, La forza del destino, Ariadne auf Naxos, etc.). -- kosboot (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In view of the trouble I foresee if Carmen hits the main page in approx 30 hours, with this infobox question still an unresolved hot topic, I have asked Bencherlite to defer the article's TFA appearance until the debate has reached an agreed conclusion. He may or may not agree to do this; I fear that, if the article does appear on 6 April, the infobox issue will adversely dominate the appearance. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an example - not for TFA time - of an opera that exists in a version with spoken dialogue and one with recitatives (not by the composer), the "clutter" results from a comment that it is not right to mention only one, - open for discussion. (Repeating: it is NOT infobox opera.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the current one, but nevertheless that's what you suggested adding to the article. In any case, that point is now moot. As for "it is not right to mention only one". That's precisely my point about the genre issue. In an infobox, the Type should simply be be Opera in 4 acts. Trying to break it down into sub-genres generates even more confusing and misleading attempts to clarify, which cannot be done properly in an infobox, including wrongly describing the Vienna version as a Grand opera simply because it had recitatives instead of spoken dialogue. Voceditenore (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not propose to add this to the article, I said "a sample of what an infobox might contain". The article says "Bizet's friend Ernest Guiraud replaced the original dialogue with recitatives, to create a "grand opera" format." - sounds like Grand opera to me, - sorry if I misunderstood. Just for fun: when I "google" Carmen, I get an infobox that has a bit of "our" lead, then
 * Language: French
 * First performance: March 3, 1875
 * Composer: Georges Bizet
 * Adapted from: Carmen
 * Characters: Lillas Pastia, Frasquita, Le Dancaïre, Le Remendado, More
 * Librettists: Ludovic Halévy, Henri Meilhac
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the article text puts "grand opera" in quotes for a reason and qualifies it with the word format for a reason. In other words, it resembled grand opera in that way, but that is entirely different from stating that the opera's genre was first an opéra comique and then a grand opera. It merely proves my point about the need to keep it simple. The subtleties of the contextualised prose were completely lost in the infobox and ended up misleading the hapless person who reads only that. And yes, I'm aware of Google's "infoboxes", which they seem to be able to generate quite adequately without any need for an infobox in the Wikipedia article. They do an adequate job on Verdi as well despite the fact that his WP article has no infobox either. Voceditenore (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Further comments/suggestions
This is what the Carmen infobox would look like, based on Example 2 from the template page, which I think is the most practical of those listed. This largely accords with the principles set out, above, by Voceditenore; a simple summary of basic information which is not susceptible to misunderstanding. There are, however, a few points of concern:
 * While I agree with Voceditenore that we should not indicate sub-genres, are the terms "opera" and "operetta" adequate for all cases? Is there a formal point of distinction between the two? What, for example, is Orpheus in the Underworld? What label applies to Gilbert and Sullivan? What about Holst's Savitri, which lasts only half an hour but is in no sense an "operetta"?
 * I assume that the "Translation" field is solely for the English name (e.g. The Magic Flute) of a foreign language opera, not for the other way round; it may be wise to make this clear! (Les corsaires de Penzance, Il giro d'elica etc)
 * The "composer" and "librettist" field should have (s) added in each case. There is rarely more than one composer but often, as with Carmen, more than one librettist.
 * Instead of the website, would it be more useful to have a hidden list of the composer's operas, as within the current opera article lead images?

In summary, subject to further discussion on the outstanding points, I can't think that anyone would have much objection to an opera infobox using a template along such lines. It will provide the opportunity for showing more attractive images; some of the composers (e.g. Monteverdi) look far from welcoming. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Brian's suggestions
 * Re "opera"/"operetta" genres My view is that Type should always be "opera in X acts" except possibly in the relatively few cases where the work is widely known as an operetta, e.g. The Merry Widow. The same could apply possibly to "zarzuela", e.g. Luisa Fernanda (although our coverage of that genre is unfortunately very poor). But I can see the value in not even in making those distinctions, the lines are often very blurry and singling out one can be misleading and over-simplified. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re the "translation" field The documentation needs to be better, but it might still have potential to confuse the reader. The idea, if I've understood it correctly, was that the "name" at the top of the Box would be the same as the name of the article. So, name = The Marriage of Figaro; "Native name" = Le nozze di Figaro. If the article's title is in the "foreign" name but the opera has a standard English title, then that would go in the "Translation" field, e.g. name = Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg; translated_name = The Mastersingers of Nuremberg. The translated name should be only used if the opera has a standard English name, though, not for ad hoc translations. Thus, Le convenienze ed inconvenienze teatrali would have no translated name field, but it would have Viva la mamma in the "other name" field as it is also known by that name. Voceditenore (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "composer" and "librettist" fields I agree with Brian, they should both have (s) added to the visible label. This is quite important given the number of cases of libretti with 2 authors, and there are several operas with two or even more composers. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re "website" field and opera lists This is an optional field which can be useful for 21st century operas that have a dedicated website, e.g. Doctor Atomic and doctor-atomic.com and should only be used when such a website exists. I agree that an additional field with an "Operas by X" label with a drop-down list of the composer's operas (as in the current head of article navboxes, e.g. Template:Verdi operas) could be useful. Some of the major composers already have horizontal footers that link to all kinds of stuff about them, including their operas, so there would be some duplication there, but in this case, I think the slight overlap could be worth it as a convenience both to readers and to editors. I think it would be a bit more straightforward than Almost-instinct's suggestion above which would list only the opera, its predecessor, and its successor. In quite a few cases for the minor composers, some of those would not have articles yet, which is not very helpful to the reader. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re premiere place. Brian, I added this currently available field to your example box. At the moment it's coded to be a single line appearing after the "Premiere" label, with the theatre following the dash after the date. I'm not sure about this. Most of the theatres have quite long names, which will then be split onto the next line. I think it would better to have the theatre simply appear below the date analogous to the way DoB and PoB appear on separte lines with the labe' "Born" in Infobox person. But if that's difficult to code, it's OK for now. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In summary Like Brian, I feel a simple infobox on this model would be very useful for opera articles, and I think acceptable to just about all editors working in the field here. I'd also like to emphasize that simplicity is needed not only to prevent misleading over-simplification, but also to keep the box easy to read, with the truly key information easily accessible and not lost in a morass of detail and/or added prose. Equally important in my view, is that an infobox should be easy for editors to edit and apply without requiring lots of extra and more complicated coding, without hitting an editor (or a potential new editor) in the face with a massive wall of code as soon as they open the edit window, and with minimum scope for introducing inaccuracies. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, Carmen looks attractive and presentable that way, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"To do" list
Before we can go live with this there are still some outstanding things to do, based on the above discussion.
 * 1) Change labels for Composer and Librettist to Composer(s) and Librettist(s)
 * 2) Add an optional drop-down (collapsed) module using plainlist for listing the other operas by that composer with Wikipedia articles and their premiere dates.
 * 3) Make the documentation/instructions much clearer
 * 4) Adjust the display on the documentation so that the sample infoboxes don't overlap with the explanatory text. At the moment, it's a mess and hard to read.
 * 5) Not crucial but desirable, incorporate Italic title into the box so it automatically italicises the article's title, as per Composer navbox

Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't generally do #2; that would belong in a navbox. I'll work on the rest. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec) Are you sure about #1? To me, it looks strange in the 95 or so % of cases when there is only one composer/librettist.
 * #2 I suggest to have a new parameter for that. For some composers the Navbox will have the information. The collapsing would be coded when filling the infobox, example Richard Wagner, years active.
 * #3 I believe that you are the best person to start making the instructions clearer, knowing what will be needed.
 * #4 "No overlap" done.
 * #5 - It's in Infobox musical composition but looks too complicated for me to copy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: #1 and #5 done. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks both. I'll start working on cleaning up the documentation, when the final bits are done. The reason for the optional dropdown list (#2) is that for a lot of operas we don't have any horizontal navboxes for that composer (in fact the majority of them), and we'd lose a lot of functionality and convenience for both editors and readers. Donizetti and Salieri are ones that come immediately to mind. Composers like this have way too many operas to add to a "See also" section. On the other hand, adding all these operas by hand to each infobox is very tedious. If we start adding these infoboxes, to the articles that already have horizontal navboxes available, we can gradually start converting the vertical navboxes for other composers to horizontal ones, but in the meantime, I think we need this option. Re #1, there are enough operas with two composers or librettists (especially librettists, that it is needed. Voceditenore (talk)
 * Thank you! - Only to the last bit: I think if it says "composer" and you see two names, you will think plural, but "composer(s) Giuseppe Verdi" looks strange to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Example Orlando
Example tried. I don't remember: do we not want to be able to mention what was the base for the libretto, in this case Orlando Furioso by Ariosto? Orlando is the original name rather than a native, but not "other name". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Infobox ballet has based_on, and it would be sensible to reuse that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried, not in documentation until it is decided to stay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. No. Orlando would be "other title", not "native title". I've explained this above in responding to Brian Boulton's queries. "Native title" is used if the article is under the English title, e.g. for The Marriage of Figaro, the "Native title" would be Le nozze di Figaro. I haven't got a clue how to fix this . I've changed this in the example. Previous version here
 * 2. The field/title Other works 1713–1738 is horrendously opaque and misleading. Other works by whom? What kind of other works? Why the dates? It should appear simply as what the list actually is:  Operas by Vivaldi. I haven't got a clue how to fix this.
 * 3. We have discussed at length the problems with over-specifying genre. It should simply be "Opera in three acts".I will take care of this in the documentation.
 * 4. We could have a Based on field. However, the problems with specifying sources has also been discussed. This can be a minefield. I'd suggest simply putting:
 * Librettist Grazio Braccioli after Ariosto's Orlando Furioso.
 * 5. On reflection, I agree about the composer field, the number of operas with more than one composer is sufficiently small, that this does look weird. But the {s) should stay for Librettist(s). Quite a few operas have two librettists.
 * 6. As a general point an image like this is incredibly boring (and space comsuming) I will suggest in the documentation that a picture of the composer with a suitable caption may be preferable in many cases.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried out a smaller and more visually interesting image using Vivaldi's portrait instead of the libretto cover. The version with the libretto cover is here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried a few changes, please look. I had suggested "Other works" because for some composers there would be operettas also. Changed to an even more neutral "Other", then the header can be designed as fits, for example "stage works by ...". I still think "Librettist" would be fine even for more than one, but that is just my opinion. - In the next round, please start a new infobox for major changes, for later readers of the discussion who will have no idea why the pic is considered boring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I meant to add a link to the previous version with the libretto page, and got distracted doing something else. I've added it now above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging based_on and "librettist; that harms data granularity. Of course, it;s possible to have two parameters, but still display them on one line. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to follow, got them separate and still show in one line, but don't know enough how to suppress that the other is also shown, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses
 * 1) On reflection, I agree with Andy re the Based on parameter. I think it should be kept separate, if we are going to have it. I want to keep this box as easy to use as possible. There's no need to have it appear on the same line as the librettist. In fact that's a bad idea when you have two librettists and frankly, it looks awful and confusing in the current example too. And even with one librettist, it will still spill over to second line in many cases anyway. Let's keep it simple with Based on as a separate parameter, and incidentally, a great deal of caution in using it.
 * 2) The solution of simply Other for the list of other operas/operettas seems OK since it then allows for flexibility of titling with each box. But is it possible for the title, e.g. Operas by Vivaldi not to appear in bold?
 * 3) Where did this new parameter Original title come from? Sorry Gerda, but I am totally opposed to adding yet another complication to this template, and again one that is very open to oversimplification and error. Other title is more than enough to cover this. I want Original title taken out.
 * 4) On reflection, the (s) could be removed from Composer and Librettist, listing more than 1 will make the plural obvious.

Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried to follow, please check. Not to have the title of the collapsed list bold would mean to change that template, certainly more than I could do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a minor point and not worth the hassle. The bolding is OK. Voceditenore (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Different question about the pic: "The fact that the painting actually depicts Antonio Vivaldi has been questioned by some sources (e.g. by Groves dictionary)." So says the docu. We were encouraged not to present "Young Bach" without a note that it possibly not Bach who is portrayed. You may find the libretto pic boring, - I think it's more specific to the opera, and will probably not drive away readers ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Version with the "maybe" Vivaldi portrait here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, what picture to use is ultimately up to the editor adding the box, and subsequent editors. One could even have an image like this with a suitable caption. The problem with the libretto page (here), apart from its extreme lack of visual interest is that it is very big vertically. Images like that make the infobox extend way too far into the article, possibly interfering with the rest of the layout, and keeping the main box information out of easy sight, especially for people with small screens. Anyhow, I'll cover some of the arguments for and against different types of images in the documentation and leave it that. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we've pretty much got a complete box now with nothing else major to iron out. I've got other stuff to do today, but later on and over the weekend, I'll work on finalizing the documentation. Then we can take it to the Opera Project. Andy, I think your examples are very witty, but I may replace them with real operas which can better exemplify how the fields are used, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sounds good. Please keep one of the witty examples, perhaps at the very end, for history, amusement, and because I often refer to them in infobox discussions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Genre
The validity of genre was questioned, in response the field shows as "Description" for now, awaiting further discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One editor questioned the value used for that parameter in one article. I support the original parameter name and label. Content issues should be resolved by discussion on the talk page of the article concerned. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I try to please but can't please everybody. I have my problems with the parameter myself ;) It's easy to revert, the parameter is still entered as genre. "Description" was not invented but found on the List of compositions by Benjamin Britten in the table of his operas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I now restored "genre", adding "description" alternatively for cases when genre is "impossible". I liked to see that in the Britten list the same key facts as shown as in "our" template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Show genre sooner
A discussion related to the L'Arianna experiment created the wish to show that a thing (title) with often a foreign name is an opera right on top. As a fast response, I created an extra parameter genre_header, so far unconditional. We should discuss if this should be replaced by genre, and if so, what to do with additional information such as the number of acts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think using this as a header is a good idea. But I suggest keeping the genre field for the sub-genre, e.g. dramma giocoso, Singspiel, etc., if relevant. I've provisionally edited the documentation to reflect this. The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to leave the number of acts out completely. It's not a an important fact about the opera and causes multiple complications for operas with several versions and/or for operas which are presented as scenes or tableux. I think it's best to leave that to the text of the article and try to keep the boix as simple as possible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. - I will talk to template people how to show genre on top if it is entered, and I suggest a different ? for the sub-genre, - how should that appear in the display? I would also agree to leave out the acts and scenes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll get back on this later today. Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Over wiki-linking?
Do we really need to wiki-link the word "opera" (or operetta) on the first line of the info box? The rest is fine: concise and to the point. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that depends on how the template is used. If Opera is not desired, the link, or indeed the whole word, can be omitted. If the genre is less trivial, it's probably helpful to include and link it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Premiere date and place adjustment needed
Would it possible to reformat the premiere date and place information? The dash ( – ) after the date looks very clumsy and often leads to unfortunate break-up of the premiere location over two or three lines. Using html to force a break is undesirable and also strands that dash. Using nowrap can produce an overly wide box with too much white space around the image. I'd much prefer a format like that in infobox person where there are separate fields for birth date and birth place but they appear in the box as simply 2 separate lines after Born with no dashes e.g.

 Premiere 23 July 1845 Teatro San Carlo, Naples

Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? Example taken from Template:Infobox opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * PS & BTW: the only article for a premiere in 1845 at the San Carlo was Alzira, on 12 August. What happened on 23 July? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sandbox version replaces the metadata-rich Timeline-event markup of the original, with simple linebreak-separated entries. Accordingly, I object to such a change Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, Andy, is there some way to code the box to produce that format without breaking the metadata? Does the format in infobox person for the "event" (time and place) of a person's birth break the metadata? PS Michael, I had just made up that premiere :). Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you will find a way of overcoming the hard-coded limitations of in your proposal for a better layout of this infobox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The former would require changes to Timeline-event, which is widely used elsewhere, so you'd need to be sure not to break those tranclusions. The latter uses a birthdate-specific microformat class, different to that for general events. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Andy, does Michael's version make the metadata about the premiere place completely unavailable? Or is it simply a case of not representing it as a "timeline". Also, can you point me to another type of infobox in an actual article which uses Timeline-event so I can see what it looks like and if it also contains that awkward dash? Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one Rite of Spring. However, as far as I can make out Timeline-event seems to be overwhelmingly used in list sections in the articles' text, e.g.. Only 3 other infoboxes use it Template:Infobox musical, Template:Infobox ballet, Template:Infobox Bach composition, all of which were altered by you to add that format. Surely, one could be coded specifically for performances? Sometimes "one size does not fit all". Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now simulated the behaviour of Timeline-event as used in Infobox opera by adding the same classes used there (vevent & summary) into Infobox opera/sandbox – . When I inspect the HTML source at Template:Infobox opera/testcases (or on this page here), I see no significant difference between the output of the two templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apropos The Rite of Spring: if the opera infobox's problem with the "Premiere" line can be corrected, wouldn't this fix also improve Infobox ballet? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would improve Infobox ballet if incorporated there. I don't know enough about metadata, microformts, etc. etc.—in fact I know zero. But if this generates the same type of information with better formatting. I don't see why we can't use it. It's silly to force a format/code designed to be used in text lists into an infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to move the sandbox to the template proper, though I'm surprised by the lack of feedback from our resident microformat specialist, User:Pigsonthewing. As I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'd give it another 24 hours, unless anybody else wants to do it earlier. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't this infobox simply use the template italic title instead of its current much more complicate code? I've amended the sandbox accordingly;. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done here and at Infobox ballet. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Upright
Thanks for adding a parameter to have an upright scale. Wishlist:
 * Can we have documentation?
 * Can we (automatically?) replace fixed sizes by upright?
 * If yes, can we afterwards drop image_size? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done all. Alakzi (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You work miracles! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * UnsatiabLe: we have infobox Bach composition and infobox musical composition which may have the same problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All in good time. I've added the image_upright parameter for now. Alakzi (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's the most important part, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Italic labels
Why are the labels "Translation" and "Other title" presented in italics? The content/data should be in italics, but not the labels. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? I don't know. Thanks for noticing, - it was like that from the beginning. I brutally fixed it, but now there are no automatic italics for those two labels. In the examples, that doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect automatic italics may be achieved by  and similar for , but I leave that to more experienced editors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)