User talk:Kleinzach/Sandbox 2

La Juive external link removed for COI reasons
Hello.

I noticed your query on the discussion page at this article and I wanted to explain to you why I removed an external link to a list of performances.


 * The link was attached to a publisher who was promoting a revised version of this opera, not the opera as it was originally published in the 19th century. The information refering to this version (not the original version, but the particular publisher's version) was commercial, not encyclopaedic. The account that posted this information only posted other links to this particular publisher's site (see here ), and it appeared to me to be a clear case of WP:COI.  The list only contained performances of this particular edition, and was not a general list of performances of the work.

In light of this, I'm sure that you will agree that it is preferable to link to sites which do not have commercial interest in the works being discussed. However, if you do not agree, we might discuss this on the article's talk page. Gretab 08:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further information - The IP address which added the information resolves to Frankfurt Germany. The publisher in question is Musik-Edition Lucie Galland, located in Weinsberg, just outside of Kassel.
 * The edition of La Juive is listed as Vol. I, La Juive, édité par Karl Leich-Galland, coproduit par Musik-Edition Lucie Galland et Alkor-Edition, Kassel, 2 vols. reliés, XIV et 974 p. ISMN M-006-50007-6, € 520,- There is also Vol. II, F. Halévy, Lettres, réunies et annotées par Marthe Galland, 318 p. ISBN 3-925934-37-5, € 62,-
 * Are Lucie, Marthe and Karl related? It would seem so.  This looks awfully like self-publishing and seems to confirm that COI is involved.Gretab 10:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the Galland version has a different synopsis than the traditionally used version. This seems like variations on a theme to me...Gretab 10:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the above informatio to the article's discussion page. People can make up their own minds. If you want to let the Opera Project know, please feel free to inform them.  Gretab 11:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Chamberlin
Hi. I noticed that you recently removed that article from two categories: "Australian opera singers" and "Tenors", with your edit comment stating that the subject of the article lacks notability for those categories. As Chamberlin is an Australian opera singer and a tenor, please provide me with a link to the page that states notability requirements for these categories, as I couldn't find one myself. :) JohnnyBoy17 14:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

archiving opera project talk
Hi there -- I noticed you're very diligent about archiving the talk page at the opera project. Just in case you haven't run across it yet, User:MiszaBot II is a very easy auto-archiver if you want a bot to take over. Fireplace 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

L'amant jaloux
It should be under the above title. Thanks. --Folantin 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verdi operas
I'm off to bed now, but, after reverting a rewrite of the Aida background, I've observed that the perpetrator, User:Nrswanson, has been going through just about all Verdi operas inserting "Backgound" paras which I haven't examined in detail, presumably all culled from some printed source. Some of these are additions to stubs, so are better than nothing, but ... Anyway, you might care to glance at Special:Contributions/Nrswanson if you have a moment. Best. --GuillaumeTell 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I printed off the Opera Project page and it occupies nine(!) sides of A4 in ?8pt/?6pt type. I am still pondering a serious reorganisation, especially to make it look friendlier to newcomers.

Thanks for your confirmation on this issue and User:Nrswanson, regarding the synopsis on Giovanna d'Arco.-- Nickbigd 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unexperienced User
Sigh....Well, I asked Moreschi about this and he said that the links needed to remain deleted. I will ask him or her to bring this up with the higher-ups, as this is getting to be too complicated for me to sort out. Gretab 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on Moreschi's talk page asking him to try to reason with this person. I really don't see why this is so important, but can't help but see the connection with this person's location (Heilbronn) and the presence of that town on the publisher's list. Gretab 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(To Greta and Kleinzach): left some comments on the article talk. Moreschi Talk 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess that we can consider this settled then? Gretab 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied again to "inexperience user", saying that if the information is so important, then perhaps it might be better simply to add it to the article? Quite frankly, I don't see why this is such an issue. However, it seems to me that a performance history should include perforances before 1988 and not just of this ONE edition. What a pain! Gretab 22:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the information is more important than the commercial link. I'm going to be translate the article in French Wikipedia to English and then I'm going to add what I consider to be a notable performance history.  If this isn't enough, then I don't understand what's going on here....or rather, I do but it wouldn't be polite to say so.  Gretab 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More on Re Lear
I've trawled through 3 vols of Julian Budden (no, actually, I used the indexes), and here's the position:
 * 1850: Verdi and Cammarano discussed the opera.  Verdi had written a "programma" (synopsis, apparently), but found that Cammarano wasn't on the same wavelength.
 * 1852: Cammarano died.  The programma reverted to Verdi, and some or all of the libretto (which apparently Cammarano had drafted either before or after Verdi gave up on him) became the property of Cammarano's heirs.  I have no idea what happened to it after this.
 * 1853-5: Verdi and Somma worked on what appears to have been a completely new libretto (Verdi had to give Somma instructions on how to write a libretto).  It seems to have been completed by 1855.
 * 1856: Verdi signed a contract with the San Carlo in Naples to compose the opera for the 1857-8 season.  However, nothing came of this - because Verdi refused to accept the singers who were being put forward, it seems - and he composed Ballo instead.
 * 1861-2: Verdi took the text for an aria for Cordelia in Somma's libretto, and used it for Leonora's "Me pellegrino" in Act 1 of Forza.  Budden is fairly certain that Verdi's music was composed for Forza and not Lear, as the situations in the two operas were completely different.

Hope this helps. I can supply in-line references to Budden if we have a viable article. --GuillaumeTell 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's too late for me to make any useful response. I'll let the little grey cells do their subliminal stuff overnight and get back to you tomorrow. But, off the top of my head, I do think that we have a viable article, i.e. one that can be used to refute hearsay. --GuillaumeTell 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on balance, I think you're right. Just think of all the unwritten opera projects that could have articles (many of them by Bizet!). I notice, amusingly, that the Re Lear article (shouldn't it be Il re Lear?) is linked to by two articles that apparently refer to Italian performances of the play. --GuillaumeTell 08:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Performance Histories La Juive
Well, it seems to me that, for a widely-performed Opera such as "La Juive", that only important houses should be included. If we start to include performances at the second and third tier houses, then the list will go on forever, especially since it was done often until 1930 or so. However, surely it's better to include the performance history as part of the article, rather than as a link to a commercial site? I've started the section.

I'm translating the article from French WP, but there are absolutely no sources included there. What to do? Gretab 23:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the performance history information from the publishing house's link. I've only added staged performances at major houses. Hopefully, this should take care of this situation. I don't understand why this person doesn't want to work on the article, if it's that important to him or her...Gretab 13:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've translated the synopsis, which was rough going for my French. Please have a look and correct anything which isn't clear (which might be all of it!) Gretab 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time going from one language to another. but it's done. Hopefully, it will be usable. At least it's not a copyright violation. Gretab 21:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CM Banner
To let you know the banner will only be added to non-operatic pieces of music, so this is mainly instrumental pieces. This is hopefully to bring WP:CM in line with other WikiProjects. Anything that is already tagged by WikiProject Opera will not be touched. I've told the bot not to do any Operas by ... subcategories.

 C e n t y   10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am. I know what you mean about random bot tagging and stuff, but a few weeks back we had a bot cleanup our categories which means this tagging of banners should run without a hitch. It would be nice keep in touch with someone active in the Opera WikiProject. I'm currently the overseer of the bot (User:SatyrTN is the actual operative of the bot), so if starts messing up, do let me know. However, we use SatyrBot to update our To-do list and it seems perfectly trustworthy.


 * Anyway best wishes from everyone at WikiProject Classical music.  C e n t y   11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing
OK, I've finally understood where your concerns about banners/AWB/infoboxes have come from. Rest assured, unlike Pigsonthewing, I have no point to push - I'm merely making WP:CM in line with all other WikiProjects by having a project banner.

Sadly, I doubt that we can persuade the guy. WP:CM is also against infoboxes (Please check the Chopin Piano Concerto pages to see recent removal of infoboxes.) but I've seen his attitude on WikiProjects and about not owning the page. Even if every WikiProject in Wikipedia were against him, he would still claim we had no ownership. Heck, if every person on the planet were against him, he'd still claim lack of consensus.

I see he's been banned from editting infoboxes. Do note he has been banned for 1 year in the past and has caused many other controversies (including the incident which sadly was again him vs. WP:GEO. If it gets worse, I'll back you up on WP:ANI.   C e n t y   01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of infoboxes: Johannes Brahms and Felix Mendelssohn - two big composers still with them.  C e n t y   19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And he's back to his old self again.  C e n t y   18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
Checking Grove - at least online - it is La Contadina in corte. Wires crossed somewhere, maybe betweeen the print and online Grove? Moreschi Talk 09:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's now at lowercase little c, apologies for not doing it sooner. I've expanded it to make it a little more of a respectable stub. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 15:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can indeed do the Sarti, Grove Online has a very interesting article. I wonder if there's a recording easily available, it would be fascinating to hear Metastasio's (he wrote the libretto) take on the Dido and Aeneas story. Don't worry about any Salieris, we've got months. I won't be around for most of August, which is why I'm doing these in advance.


 * Checking the list, one way to avoid the original research problems would be to redo it along the lines of List of important operas or List of major opera composers, using similar inclusion criteria. That's probably the easiest, though - as we know by now - it's time-consuming. Thoughts? Moreschi Talk 08:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

F. Osmond Carr
I see there is a new category for his operas, but, as far as I know, he only composed one comic opera, and the rest were musicals, burlesques and "variety". I have actually sung in "His Excellency". It's not bad. Regards. -- Ssilvers 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List
I'll have a look. I hardly have any time to work here today though. Opera companies aren't really my area of expertise. Cheers. --Folantin 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: the only suggestion I can make is that you do what we did with those other "important" opera lists. --Folantin 09:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Operatic baritones
I had actually changed the voice-type in the Pini-Corsi article from bass to baritone but forgot to change the cat. However, as baritones had already been divvied up by nationality it seemed sensible to go along with that. I haven't checked to see whether the job was actually completed, though.

There's already a thread on this somewhere, started by me (you may remember I had some dialogue with the re-categoriser), though it may have been archived by now. --GuillaumeTell 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Opera categories list
Hi, GO ahead. After your post, I noticed some categories that shouldn't be in the secondary list and removed them. I think, actually, that now the list is a working list and not a work in progress, it should be moved to a project sub-page. At that point it will be public properyu and you shan't need my permission at all. --Peter cohen 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now split off a third section in the cagtegory list for the one-off run. When you've done with the preliminary work, move tenors and whatever else you've touched that I've not moved already down to that section and let SatyrTN know you're ready for the run. I'll leave you to un-tag the non-operatic sopranos and tenors. I'll post on SatyrTN's user page to let him/her know that you're th person who will give the signal for us. --Peter cohen 11:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Male sopranos?
Re this -, well, yes, he was a man, but he was a soprano castrato, and many castrati sang female roles. Thoughts? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Comic operas
I'm sorry, I must have forgotten to add this category to the job queue. Conscious 04:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

John Coates
Dear Kleinzach, do you plan to add such designations to all singers? If so, it will create problems when you get to mezzo-sopranos and bass-baritones, because people will search in one mode or the other and you'll have to create loads of multiple redirects quite unnecessarily, or else they won't show up when folks search for them. John Coates (singer) only had a general term 'singer' after his name because he has to be disambiguated from another John Coates (not a singer) whose article pops up, so the natural disambiguation term is not the most specific (tenor), but the most general (singer). I would suggest that that (under such circumstances) ought to be the right way of doing it, to distinguish between Joe Bloggs (cook) and Joe Bloggs (bottlewasher), not Joe Bloggs (Celebrity masterchef) and Joe Bloggs (polisher of small specks off Belleek glassware). Most of our singers don't have anything written after their names on the page title, because they are the unique person with that name, see e.g. the article I have begun on Harry Plunket Greene - it is unneccessary to add that he is 'singer' or 'baritone' (because he is also fly-fishing writer, etc etc) - he is himself. Do you see my point? And that being the case, shouldn't we go back to John Coates (singer)? Dr Steven Plunkett 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS if you read the article, you will see that Coates initially trained as a baritone and made his first debut as such, so although he became a tenor your designation is in reality over-specific anyway. I am inclined to revert it but maybe you'd like to respond? Best wishes Dr Steven Plunkett 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images
Thanks for picking up the Ninon Vallin picture. It's one of several that I have just added, thinking that CD covers were OK as 'promotional material'. (I've seen quite a lot in other articles!) If that is not the case, they will have to come off again... Lampernist 17:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera categories topic in WPO talk
I think we have more or less finished those discussions. And there seems to be a consensus developing on the tag. I would be tempted to say don't move the discussion until the run actually happens. This, at a guess, will be tomorrow once everyone's had 24 hours to react to the suggested rewording of the tag.

At the same time we should hang the category list as a subpage of the WPO main page and add into the poage a mentionn saying that all opera categories should be manually added to the subpage. (Not that it is always going to happen. --Peter cohen 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting the subpage out. Your precaution of only listing the ones for the bot for now does seem sensible. I think maybe, once the run has happened, we can have three sections.

--Peter cohen 11:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * uncomplicated tag the lot categories such as Category:Operas by Benjamin Britten
 * uncomplicated don't tag them categories such as Category:Wagnerites which contain too many people whose only connection with opera is that they happenned to like or dislike RW.
 * the tag with care categories such as Category:Sopranos which contain a lot of opera people but will require manual detagging of the non-opera people.

Categories in opera recordings or opera singers recordings
I changed the category in List of recordings by Plácido Domingo, basically I removed all and replaced them with Category:Opera recordings and Category:Lists of albums, just like Enrico Caruso recordings. Hope it is ok. I also added opera template in the talk page. - Jay 10:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera run
We are getting ready to roll. I assume we will need two banner templates, one simple for the Opera Project (Template:WikiProject Opera) and another new one for stub class which I propose to call Template:Operastubclass. Is that OK? -- Kleinzach 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kleinzach. Why would you want a separate one for stub articles? Respond here - I'll watch your page :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's why I asked the question. As agreed by the project and if it's OK with you, the bot run will have two outcomes. One will be to place a talk page banner saying:


 * This article is within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!


 * The other will be a larger talk page banner saying:


 * This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!


 * This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Opera because it uses a stub template.


 * I was assuming that we would need two distinct templates. Maybe I am wrong? -- Kleinzach 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah - since the messages are essentially the same (with the "automatically assessed" line added to the second), usually we just add a bit of code to the template. That way the bot, when it needs to tag an article as a stub, adds a bit "|auto=yes" to the banner, so that it says "  ".  Then the code in the template knows what to display.  Unless you want to have two different templates?  That's usually discouraged, though. I totally recommend we add the code from a more developed template - like Project New Hampshire.  We can leave off the "importance" code, but leave the rest of it in there.  We can even hide the assessment stuff, if you want, but I recommend leaving it in there. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No we don't want to have two templates if it's not necessary. However I see that Project New Hampshire includes the words This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. . . .This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This hasn't been agreed by the project so I don't think we would want that. -- Kleinzach 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So instead of either of those lines ("...on the assessment..." and "...on the importance...") you'd like the phrase from above (when applicable) - "...automatically assessed as...". Does that sum it up? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, one version with This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Opera because it uses a stub template. and one without. Thanks -- Kleinzach 05:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great - I've added the code. You can see an example of both banners at Sandbox/op.
 * So just let me know on my talk page when the categories have been finalized and we'll get to it :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wonder if we could have a graphic for the stub class? A reddish box with the word stub positioned on the left seems normal. Should I find an example for you? -- Kleinzach 23:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example (soon to be deleted!):

-- Kleinzach 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(deleted template)
 * That's not actually a graphic. That's part of the assessment code that almost all project banners have.  So here's a dilemma.  I can either add the code to just create the red box (just like the Germany one).  Or I can add the full suited of code that most project banners have that allows for all article ratings - Stub, Start, B, A, GA, FA.  None of the other ratings have to be used at this point, but I recommend going that way, since at some point people are going to say "That's not a stub article!" and change the rating.  Let me know what you think. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say yes, but can I see an example? (The reason I hesitate is that we have a finely crafted consensus on this and I don't want to go beyond what has been agreed!) We'd obviously need to have the option of de-stub classing by hand. -- Kleinzach 00:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put together Wikipedia talk:Sandbox/op. Each of the three examples has the "code" that would be put on the talk page to generate it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I 'think' I understand, but what is the differtence between auto stub and non-auto stub? I'd like to show this to the Project before we run the bot - perhaps we can add a plain unassessed version? Also we'll need all the text ranging the same way (i.e. left). Should I fix this is in the template?  Thanks for helping (on the Project page) with getting rid of the alternative banners. Now all done - that was a great help! -- Kleinzach 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An auto stub is one that's put there by the bot "because it uses a stub template". I've made the changes to the sandbox page above.  You can leave the original template the way it is - I'll replace the whole thing with the sandbox version when it's agreed.  Glad to help out! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Janáček Quartet and my talk page
Hi Kleinzach. I apologize for creating a misunderstanding. I did not mean to give you the impression I was dismissing your feedback. In fact I have been quite appreciative of it, and of your help with some of the pages I have generated (e.g., the one on Maria Chiara). I only started clearing things from my talk page for the same reason I often delete emails soon after reading them only to realize later that I still needed a few of them - an obsessive tendency to clear clutter. I will leave all comments on my talk page from now on. I also noticed you had been following my late page on the Janáček Quartet. I was having surprising difficulty finding material to substantiate the notability of this group and would appreciate any help on this. Thanks! --EmmaPelfry 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera categories for deletion
Of course, I'm sorry. I did not actually nominate the Weill category for deletion, though; I just nominated it for renaming. But I still should've notified the WikiProject. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not place The Threepenny Opera in Category:Operas as it is not in fact an opera (I don't know if you've seen it, but I've performed in it, and I can tell you that it is in no way an opera anymore than Cabaret is). I can live with it being in Category:German-language operas, though, seeing as there appears to be no such category for musicals. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this discussion on Threepenny's talk page. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Kleinzach, I'll be ready to do a lot of helping in about 10 days time (got Oxford finals first!) But I have a family interest in opera and thus am a Verdi nut (and I speak decent German, so I'll do some translating).

If you want to start shoving typos and translating my way, put them on User:Cricketgirl/desk under the heading "Stuff other people want me to do" and I'll get to them once I'm done with this year's physics...

Thanks again for the welcome! Cricketgirl 13:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

John Coates, Edward Lloyd etc
Hello Kleinzach, thanks for your message: I have left the changes as you made them and am very grateful for your assistance with suitable categories for the singers etc I have been generating some pages for: I am not fully aware of current category policies re musicians, so your 'policing' is valued. Thanks also for comment liking the Santley article: you may enjoy the photo I just uploaded there. Planning to attempt Louise Kirkby Lunn next! Best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 23:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)