Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 115

Archives Table of Contents

Opera Infobox update
Following discussions here last March {archived in Archive 113), this is been under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation and three illustrative examples. It has been kept to only the most basic fields, with minimum scope for misleading oversimplification and/or bloat. The box could be a useful option in that it allows for more interesting images in the lead (although the composer's image can always be used the box). Also, the Operas by Composers vertical navboxes, which currently are the standard "top of article" devices, are now duplicated in many cases by the new horizontal footers that we have for many of the major opera composers. See WikiProject Opera/Horizontal composer templates for the current list.

My recommendation would be to add this infobox as option in the Article Guide and in the Template section of the main OP page, with the proviso that it is not obligatory, and that they should be used with common sense and an awareness of the needs of particular articles. Please take a look at Template:Infobox opera and discuss here whether we should add this as an option in our Guide pages. To keep this discussion on track, any detailed suggestions for amendments/improvements, and examples of alternative boxes should be made at Template talk:Infobox opera (not pasted in here). Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am deeply depressed by the prosepct of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles. But just to kick off - and quite apart from any debate as to whether such templates are appropriate - as regards your proposed template for the 'Queen of Spades' - why is the native name given as 'Pikovaya dama', when the native name is 'Пиковая дама' (and not, by the way, as given in the article 'Пи́ковая дама'). Nothing prevents you giving the transcription, but it is wrong to give the impression that the Latin alphabet transcription is the 'native name'. And why is 'Pique dame' given as an alternative title for English Wikipedia? It may have possibly have been used in the old days in Germany, but it is not as far as I am aware used as an alternative title today in either the UK or US, or on recordings (contrary to the feeble claim made in the citation given in the article that 'it is now also used in English' - if indeed that is a quote from the source cited, as the wording is ambiguous and the phrase I have cited is not in quotes). Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Observe the use of Pique Dame as the title in English . A good point about the native title rendering, though! I'll fix that in the example. Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The examples of 'Píque dame' are fascinating. Discounting those that date from 1910 and 1922, it seems that when the opera was given in Russian in the US it was, up to the 1990s, (?still is) given the title 'Pique dame'. Mystifying. But if it's a usage, it's a usage, of course. I am correcting the Russian title in the article.--Smerus (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, its entry in the 2006 Grove Book of Operas is "QUEEN OF SPADES, THE [Pikovaya dama (Pique Dame)]". So, I thinks it's a bit more than simple usage. I've added the Russian to the example box as well. Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * i still favor the composer navbox at the upper right of the article. Despite all the nice work done on this info box, the navbox is much more useful, and more convenient in this location than at the bottom of the page. I also favor making this consistent. If there is a vertical navbox for a composer, it should be used for every opera by that composer. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the infobox, and wonder if some kind of information that a navbox is available for a composer might be part of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of "non-information", i.e., sending the reader to the bottom of the same page or sending them off to a completely separate template page, does not belong in the infobox, in my view, and I'm very against that. This has been discussed at length in Archive 113. There is, however, a facility in the infobox to actually list the other operas by the composer, as in Example 3. Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say "send" them away, just: "some kind of information that a navbox is available". - I tried Lolita, would not know how to add that it was first performed in Swedish, not knowing that title. - I offered Carmen on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't add that it was first performed in a Swedish translation, an "accident" of opera scheduling. That kind of thing belongs in the article, not the box. Gerda, the whole point of the box is to keep it simple. The title in Swedish was also "Lolita". Saying that a navbox to other operas by that composer is available (however you do it) does not belong in the infobox about the opera, especially when that navbox is right there at the bottom of the page. If it's not at the bottom of the page, then list the operas in the box in the collapsible "other" field. Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Accident"? Lack of obtaining the rites. - Understand the other, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My point stands about keeping the box simple and leaving details to the article. See also the discussion at Template talk:Infobox opera. Re Carmen, I added a clarification to your comment on Talk:Carmen where you invited people there to "help discuss". I gave a link to this discussion. I would appreciate it if simultaneous discussions were not started all over the place. The original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or not to provide this as an option in our Article Guide. The discussion has just started and I don't think is helpful to start adding it to articles immediately and/or proposing it on the talk pages of other articles. It completely muddies the waters and makes the whole thing look like a fait accompli, when it is not. Can we please have some patience and let this discussion take its course. Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Carmen was not started, but a continued discussion. - I started Nixon in China (opera), please check, and I had no intentions to do more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you had proposed an infobox on Carmen, shortly before it was to appear as TFA. Your new comment and section was misleading. If you meant it as a new proposal to add the box to that article. Then you should have said so, not imply that people should discuss Infobox opera there, because that's how it read. I also think you were wrong to jump the gun and add it to Nixon in China (another featured article) when this discussion is less than 24 hours old. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I did NOT propose to add the infobox to the Carmen article, just coming from The Rite of Spring (the discussion continued). - I don't know the expression "jump the gun" but only added the infobox to an article of an author I know well enough. WP:QAI members are committed to accessibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a joint work with Brianboulton, and with the community for that matter. I am not getting involved with this.  I do not intend to take any action, but that is not because I like or dislike it, but because a discussion is under way about it, (here, though better on article talk).  You all work it out please (exiting discussion).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that it was joint work. Then let's wait if everybody agrees (with me) that the infobox is better than the list of his other works we had so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the infobox is an improvement on the old navbox in that article, but that's not the point. I repeat, the original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or not to provide this as an option in our Article Guide and to discuss how best to implement the change, if there's a consensus for it, because it has a lot of implications for the previous consistency of opera articles. Jumping the gun refers to the fact that as soon as the discussion started, you went ahead and started adding the infobox to opera articles anyway. Nixon in China has been a featured article for 2 years without this "accessibility feature" and now it needs to have an infobox added immediately? Obviously, if you're going to start adding infoboxes to articles without waiting for the discussion here, you will. I simply do not think it's helpful at this point, and see no reason why you cannot wait a few days. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that it be removed, until such time as there is broad agreement. Really, I did not want to be dragged into this and I'm not best pleased by this development.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat my previous reservations but simply note that whoever predicted errors creeping in on infoboxes is right – as neatly proved on the draft Carmen one. I also feel it very optimistic that these will not in time balloon, as the same arguments for starting them in the first place can also be used to expand them to include lots more data in future. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Consistency issues
Trying to get this discussion back on track... We currently have 2,088 articles on individual operas. I think we have to accept that adding this box as an option to the Article Guide means that for quite a while, probably 100 years :-), opera articles will no longer have one consistent "look"—they'd have two. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, or at least so bad that we simply fossilize everything as it has been for the last 6 years. Also, there are currently a lot of obscure opera articles which have don't a composer navbox either. And we already have articles like Candide (operetta) and Der Protagonist, which by consensus use footer boxes (Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein and Works for the stage by Kurt Weill) that include the composers' other (non-opera) stage works. But, if we do add it to the Guide and editors start adding it to articles, I do think that as a project we should priortise making all the operas by a single composer consistent, rather than adding the box willy nilly. Some members find the current vertical navbox convenient. Others actually prefer the horizontal footer (at least from past discussions). But I'm not sure that a minor inconvenience for editors (shifting to footer navboxes) necessarily outweighs the benefits of an infobox with its increased image flexibility, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think it's a problem. Actually the infobox "looks" quite like the former right-corner navbox, especially if the image is the one of the composer. - I see it just as an addition, not a major change. Patiently yours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be in deepest darkest Tuscany for the next week, with only intermittent access, if at all. In the meantime, I've left notes on the talk pages of all the members who participated in the March discussion, letting them know about the new box and this discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not entirely clear about the nature and location of 'this discussion'. Is 'this discussion' about what an infobox might look like, or about whether there should be some new guidance on infoboxes, based on the proposed model, by the Project? These are two quite separate issues. I am not aware that the second one has yet been formally broached. Gerda 'doesn't think it's a problem' and I congratulate her on her eternal Fotherington-Thomas grade optimism. I have a suspicion that others may not agree with her however.--Smerus (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just nipping in before I go. I tend to agree with you, Smerus, which is why I pointed out some potential objections/problems, others might have. This discussion is about whether there should be some new Project guidance on using an opera infobox, based on the proposed model, i.e. offering it as an option. I had, I thought, made that clear at the beginning of this discussion, but it... er... got a bit de-railed, by the precipitous adding of it to articles before the discussion even got underway. Various tweaks etc. can always be made later to the box itself, if the need arises, but it's in a reasonably stable state now (after a fair amount of discussion on the template talk page), and if we do adopt it as option, it might be a good idea to let it "settle in" and monitor how it's working out for a while. Anyhow, this discussion should stay open for at least a week. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * bene, a rivederla!--Smerus (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll second the wise words of Smerus: "I am deeply depressed by the prospect of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles." That said, my hat is off to those who have developed the opera templates, as the results of their considerable labors strike me as well-considered and classy. I just hope these templates fare better than some other classical-oriented ones that have been developed, only to draw repeated surreptitious deletions by parties who seem to consider anyone objecting to universal application of pop-oriented boxes to be some sort of elitist intent on subverting the common weal. In general I would feel comfortable if we were to offer guidance endorsing the new boxes' judicious use. One question: do they sufficiently allow for operas that exist in more or less coequal versions in different languages, like, say, William Tell? Sorry if my quick skim of the discussion page missed that issue, but if they don't it may be a matter worth considering there--I don't mean to derail discussion further here! Drhoehl (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding just to the point about versions, so as not to mix it up with my tome below, which is on the general principle at hand. "Guglielmo Tell" could be added as "Other title", with "Guillaume Tell" used as "native title". We discussed the possibility of a "versions" field at Template talk:Infobox opera, and decided against it, as this is the kind of detail best left to the article where it can be properly explained and contextualised, not to mention that the distinction between a revised version and something which constitutes a virtually different opera is a blurry continuum. We're always going to have a few "outliers", whether we have an infobox or not—it applies to questions of categorisation etc. as well. We also tend to treat versions quite differently from article to article, although that's again a separate issue. Sometimes, it's a brief mention, as in William Tell. Sometimes, the "other versions" are gone into in much more detail in a separate section in the article, e.g. Lucia di Lammermoor. Sometimes they get two separate articles, e.g. Les vêpres siciliennes and I vespri Siciliani. Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons why I support making the recently developed infobox as an option (and spent the time helping to develop it and keep it simple) is that it is probably our best chance of avoiding these depressing, cyclical time-sinks. Up to now, we have had the situation where half-baked "test" boxes were added to articles on a one-off basis, e.g. Motezuma or yet another "experimental" version is proposed for addition to an article that was about to become Today's Featured Article, e.g. Carmen etc. with resulting unfocused, rambling, and sometimes disruptive discussions started all over the place. Like it or not, this will keep happening, unless we develop an infobox for optional use which has minimum capacity for:
 * 1. misleading or over-simplifying
 * 2. skewing or drastically limiting the layout of the rest of the article
 * 3. adding walls of code which are off-putting to both new and many experienced editors
 * 4. re-creating the whole article as wall of bullet points that actually obscure the key information rather than making it more accessible.
 * I think this box fulfills that and in addition gives us greater flexibility in illustrating articles, and could be a positive improvement for many of them. I've gone through all the past discussions here on developing an opera infobox, and all the editors participating were either in favour (in varying degrees) or at least not opposed to one, if it was succinct and reasonably well-thought out. The main problem before was the worry that developing one would entail a distracting time-sink. But the main donkey-work has now been done. Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that there's so little data reuse possible in the current state of the proposed draft infobox. For instance, the flattening of every single work to the undifferentiated category of "opera" means that extra work needs to be done to create, say, a list of works (where it is usual to describe the sub-genre). One possibility of making the data more useful, while not reopening discussions on display formats, would be to store some info as non-displaying.  It will mean a very small amount of extra work loading the structure up in the first place. This would improve re-usability, and offer the possibility of richer meta-data.  Also, if it is decided that a reader can gain valuable information from knowing if a work is an opera bouffe or a tragédie lyrique the sub-genre field can be made visible and no extra work needs done. (edited) Scarabocchio (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have lists of operas for every major composer (and most of the minor ones as well). Virtually all of them already include the sub-genres. The vast majority of them were made by Kleinzach and are, in my view, some of the most valuable opera pages on Wikipedia. See Category:Lists of operas by composer. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on Scarabocchio's points, I believe the infobox is structurally much more significant that most of us realize (it's not just about making a nice article). I was reading The WP article on Wikipedia.  It actually mentions one of the functions of infoboxes:  Since WP is often mined for data to be supplied elsewhere (e.g. Google's Knowledge Graph), the infobox supplies important main points to populate these other uses of WP, particularly as the semantic web begins to emerge.  For that reason I think infoboxes should be used when possible and that over-simplification, while making them easier, does not do justice to WP:Opera or to WP. -- kosboot (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to answer a couple of points here. There is no need to add an extra field for sub-genre. The current guidance is
 * If there is a referenced sub-genre, the linked term can be put in parentheses, e.g. "Opera (dramma giocoso) in 4 acts". However, do not list the sub-genre if it would lead to misleading oversimplification. Sub-genre distinctions can be very blurry, and are best explicated in the article text.
 * So I really don't see what the problem is. There was also discussion on this point at Template talk:Infobox opera when the box was being developed. I'd suggest that discussion about the specific details and structure of the box, proposed future changes etc. take place there, so we can keep track of it as the box develops rather than diffusing it here. Re the general issue of metadata, I think everyone here is aware of that aspect, and most of us see a certain amount of value in it. However, I also think that, as with everything else, we need to balance several issues, including editor retention and our duty not to mislead the reader or to bury the key facts in a wall of detail. Those are my priorities and those of several other active editors here—not simply making life easy for the commercial companies data-mining Wikipedia for profit. I'm sure this essay won't change minds either way, but it's worth reading an alternative viewpoint. Voceditenore (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update
As this discussion has been open for over two weeks with some reservations but without any major objections to making this box available as an option for articles on individual operas, I've now gone ahead and added it to the list of templates on the main project page and to the Article Guide. Hopefully, this will not prove to be the end of civilization as we know it, although you never know ;). Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Méhul's Joseph
It seems to me that the substitution of Template:Infobox opera for Template:Méhul operas in the article Joseph (opera) is not an improvement. It removes the portrait of the composer, makes the image of the costume designs so small that the role names are difficult to read, and otherwise only repeats information that is already included in the lead of the article. And isn't it contextually better to keep the costume designs closer to the role table? Also, if a new article about a Méhul opera appears, there will now be two templates to which it should be added for navigation. The more of these that we have, the more difficult it will be to add new articles to these lists and to keep them all co-ordinated. I see several disadvantages and little or no advantage with this change. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking questions instead of reverting!
 * Of course the picture of the composer could appear instead, but it is not unique to that opera. Open to discussion.
 * If we take the costumes pic, it could be larger. Open to discussion.
 * An infobox is meant to repeat, the list of other works is even an addition to the lead, also the link to the list of operas sooner than under the heading "Opera". I might want to point out why the date format of the premiere is preferable to the one in the article but was warned not to do so ;)
 * The "two templates" are temporary in a state of transition. Perhaps the composer deserves a bottom navbox on his 250th birthday, to start having just one template right away? There we could have his other operas as red links, with no need to change anything when a new one is added. - Many other composers have them, where "two templates" is no problem.
 * Again, thank you for your feedback, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean about the date format of the premiere. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth discussing this example here instead of Talk:Joseph (opera) because it highlights some of the potential problems with this infobox and its application in general. Re the picture, I decided not to discuss and put the composer back at the top and the costumes where they were, for the reasons outlined by Robert above. That was most definitely not an improvement, and actually a detriment. The infobox does not work well when displaying images like this. Also don't bold the composer, and don't link an extremely common city like Paris. I tweaked the premiere place slightly to make it a little clearer and removed Book of Genesis from based on. That field is for specific literary works which were the principal basis for the libretto. It is a misleading oversimplification to say Book of Genesis, as the opera is loosely based on only one story from it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comments, we are learning ;) - I bolded the composer because of the bold "other" title and because a vaguely remember a comment regarding that, but will not do it again. I would have been happy to refer to the specific Bible source but it was not given in the article, and I had no time to find and insert it (roughly Chapters 39 to 47). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, in a case like that, it may be better to leave it blank. The field was meant for cases where specific literary works formed the basis of the libretto. If you feel compelled to, put something like: "Biblical story of Joseph". Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Robert that one HUGE disadvantage of this infobox when there are no horizontal footer navboxes for that composer is that everything must be added by hand to each infobox when a new opera is created, not to mention recreating the list each time the infobox is added to another opera by that composer. While it's true that this is a period of transition, there are things that can be done to ease this.

First, restrict adding the infobox to articles for which a horizontal composer navbox is already available. Editors who are mad keen to add these infoboxes, should take responsibility for seeing that such navoxes are created, and no, not ones filled with red links, please. For operas which do have a horizontal navbox seriously think of working in units, i.e. change over all the operas by one composer, rather than randomly skipping around adding an infobox here and there.

I think we need a fairly lengthy period to watch how these boxes settle in and to see what other sorts of problems crop up and to re-evaluate their use, if necessary. In the meantime, they should be added in as consistent a way as possible and starting with low profile articles. I'm going to be frank here... adding or attempting to add them to Featured Articles at this early stage, is a bad idea, and in my view, disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed: better no overlinking, better an infobox where there is a navbox already, better if not FA, no red links in navboxes (but I was used to see more than hundred red links in the Bach cantata navbox when I started, now all turned blue). Not agreed: "mad keen", "randomly", and "working in units" (because then you also have to change in units), better have one improved and then take the others of the unit from there, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, or if you understood what I meant by units, but I was suggesting that if an infobox is added to one opera by a composer, then it might be a good idea to gradually add it to the other operas by the same composer so that one set is changed over completely before moving on to another composer, rather than leaving several opera composers whose opera articles are inconsistently presented. On the other hand, if in a few months time project members decide to deprecate the box, then we would have to remove it in units too. So you may have a point. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I understood you, so now we have all operas by Méhul, - but need too change all of them to the more precise captions ;) - I need to go for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The way it is now is too confusing, with the title Joseph over the picture of Méhul. If casual readers do not glance down at the caption, they may initially assume it is a picture of Joseph, the subject of the opera. If the Infobox is used, it should have a different picture rather than the portrait of Méhul. (However, since the infobox adds nothing to the article, as far as I can see, I think it should be deleted altogether. Sorry.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have a good point about not using the picture of the composer, - it was only used because you found the other too small, remember. I will try now to have the "costums" picture larger in that one opera, as a test, not changing the others. - We may also think about the composer's name above the image, at least in cases where he is pictured. Such design questions should be raised at the template talk. - The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information, may I say that much? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tentatively got the composers name above the image. If you don't like it, it's easily changed back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A nmumber of points: but the first one is, what on earth is this discussion doing here? Should it not be on the talk page of Joseph (opera)? I thought that the discussion of infoboxes was to be on a case-by case basis. I hope no one is thinking of any argument such as 'As it's been accepted for this opera, we can now put an infobox on any opera without discussion.'?

Second: the box looks damned ugly and confusing with thne costume pictures squashed next to each other and bits of the accompanying text in the picture.

Third: What on earth is the point of it? And what can Gerda mean when she says 'The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information'. In what way is this an 'accessibility' tool? If this is the justification for it, no one has given any evidence-base that this enhances 'accessibility' in any way. The box simply repeats, with a confusing picture, exactly the information in the brief lead. If something doesn't add to an article, as Gerda admits its the case here, it should be removed from that article.

Fouth: 'Opera in three acts' is not a genre, it is a description. 'Opéra comique' might be a genre description if it was accurate (I'm not sure it is). If you can't cite (in the article) what genre the opera belongs to, it is actually fundamentally misleading to put anything to this effect in the infobox.

Therefore: please remove this entire discussion to the article talk page, and record my opinion there as Delete, on the grounds of it being (to recap) unattractive, repetitive, pointless and misleading.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I put this in the wrong place, but I think the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well. It should probably be of concern to most editors who participate in this probject. That is why I put the discussion here. (I admit however, that I was not editing when the prior discussions concerning this infobox occurred, and I have not taken the time to read the archived discussions. Perhaps I should.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation: but I really think it would be correct to have the discussion on the article talk page (which presently does not even note that a discussion is taking place here). The assumption that 'the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well' is one which is likely to prove optimistic in view of prior discussions; and it would therefore also be highly sanguine to assume that agreement on one (if it can be obtained) would automatically mean agreement on others. I note by the way that in its presently etiolated state, the infobox is not much different from the original Méhul template (which also I see gives 'opera in 3 acts' as a genre). So has all this discussion been, in effect, merely about the picture? As the English tabloid newspapers are wont to say, 'Why, oh why?'.--Smerus (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with Robert that the use in this article is illustrative of more general problems with the box, e.g. the problems of updating the navigation to other operas, the problem with squashing certain types of images into the box, and the use of the field "Genre", and as such is fine to discuss here. As to problems of the use specifically in that article, well, yes, I would say to bring further discussion there. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with using genre like this in the box in the sense that opera is a broad genre of theatrical art. Note the OP guidance here which has been there practically since the project began:
 * The introduction is normally in the present tense, and should begin with the opera's title in bold italics (with English translation where appropriate), the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, librettist, language of the libretto, source of the libretto (when based on another work), and the date of the premiere.
 * Of course there are numerous sub-genres, although their names are not particularly illuminating in many cases, apart from historical interest, and even then, there is lot of variation in the listing of the "sub-genre" (often simply a descriptive term) for the same opera, blurry boundaries, synonymy etc. See my comment at Talk:Joseph (opera) as to why its "sub-genre" was listed as "drame en trois actes, mêlé de chant" in the opening night affiches. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for citing the OP guidance. This is explicit: 'the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, [....]'. Thus, the genre here is simply 'opera'; the number of acts (per the guidance) is not part of the genre. You can either specify the no. of acts in as separate line of the box (if you really must), or you can leave it in the text of the article. As I note this topic is now becoming somewhat schizophrenic between here and the article talk-page, I am copying this comment there.--Smerus (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And by the way.....a brief reading of the brief article itself showed, among other things, clunky writing, over- and under-linking, repetition of information (some of it false), and text under inappropriate headings. I have tried to correct these issues. It does suggest however, that work on the articles themsleves is rather more important and necessary that messing about with ancillary features.--Smerus (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes should run horizontally, at the foot of the article, rather than in the "infobox" location, as they do in most of Wikipedia. If this is an issue on a large number of articles, I'm sure a bot operator would assist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox redux
An editor has asked at Talk:Joseph (opera): "I'd like to know if this is the beginning of a whole series of problems on these articles". Since infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, and given the reaction at Joseph, it probably will mean discussions like that on every page to which it is added.

Slight rewind... We had the situation here where we were being faced with attempts to add ad hoc (and wildly inappropriate) boxes to articles, with no evidence that it would let up. There were at least two active members keen to have them, another who had previously suggested we think about this, some who were agnostic, and one or two who were quite opposed to them. For better or worse, there was no longer a clear consensus not to have them. (See discussions dating back to February here and multiple sections here.)

In March, after gallons of virtual ink had been spilled, I proposed a plan that we work on an infobox that "does least harm" and when it was in a reasonably complete state that we discuss whether there was a consensus to add the box to our list of templates as an option. That approach had reasonable agreement. All active members who were not already engaged in the seemingly endless discussions, were notified, and also invited to give input at Template talk:Infobox opera where the box was being developed. Several did. This month the proposed box was put to a discussion, which remained opened for over two weeks, with members notified again. My reading of the consensus of that discussion (and I can only go by what people actually said) was to add it as an option for now.

Fast forward... There is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that we do not recommend its use. I've given my best shot at resolving this issue, which trust me, will not go away, whatever we do. I will leave it to someone else to take the lead in future discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tippett
Apologies for interrupting the infobox debate. I'm delighted to see that The Midsummer Marriage is to be performed at the Proms this year; our page is quite basic, in particular very little is there of performance history. I'm about to go plough through Google searches to see what I can find out, and will start dumping the info on the talk page. If anyone has any paper-based info that they can add, that would be very helpful. In fact almost certainly better than what I'm about to find. ;-) And then we can have a go at patting the info into shape. Listening to Gloriana at ROH last night made me apprecaite anew how wonderful The Midsummer Marriage is  almost - instinct 09:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to admit I hated his Knot Garden, but like his Child of our Time. Should I give Midsummer Marriage a try? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Midsummer Marriage is from before the change of style that came about thanks to the composition of King Priam. So if you like Child Of Our Time, you have a good chance of enjoying The Midsummer Marriage, which is lyrical and intense. The most commonly encountered bit is the Ritual Dances from the middle act. Here they are on Youtube:  almost - instinct  10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone can remember foreign productions off the top of their head, that would give me something to go searching for. I've chanced upon productions in San Fran, NY and Stockholm. Presumably there must have been some in Germany? To my surprise there isn't a German WP page on the opera  almost - instinct 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah, let's get back to music! For interest btw here is a very intemperate putdown of Tippett by Norman Lebrecht (from 2004).....--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, Almost-Instinct! I've added one source to the talk page and will look for more for you. I was at the 1996 ROH performance. I'll see if I can dig out the programme. Tippett himself came out for a curtain call, but I'm ashamed to say that all I can remember of the opera itself was a man in his underpants dancing around with a huge upright pole in his hands. Apparently, even after days of rehearsals, Joan Sutherland still had no idea what the opera was about and finally asked Tippett, who told her cryptically: "It's just something inside me that I have to get out." I kind of had the same reaction as Dame Joan. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a programme of a Welsh National Opera production (Ian Watt-Smith/Richard Armstrong) which I saw in Leeds in 1976 and another (somewhere) of a 1985 Opera North production, also in Leeds (Tim Albery/David Lloyd-Jones) - I'll try to dig them out, plus the programme for the 2005 ROH revival if required. The only other Tippett opera that I like (I've seen 'em all except Robin Hood) is King Priam.  (Oh, and I greatly enjoyed Gloriana last Saturday after the Frederick Ashton Wikimedia editathon in the ROH's ex-crush bar (and quite a bit of wine in the Globe.)) --GuillaumeTell 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've pasted in some of GT's info to the talk page, where I've been adding lots of links and from which I'm getting an idea of the performance narrative - can we continue there please, so I can unfollow this page once again? ;-)  almost - instinct 12:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Adam, do give The Midsummer Marriage a try—Tippet at his best, I think. The Knot Garden felt a little knotty to me, musically and dramatically. Tony   (talk)  11:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Charpentier
Today's birthday child, Charpentier, is famous for an opera, Louise. It comes with a navbox on the right that doesn't show the composer's picture, only the picture's name. I don't find why, and possibly it's only me who sees it like that. I am so tempted to create an infobox instead ;) - Back to that topic, I think it's way to soon to suspend that idea. The parameter "Genre" needs more thinking before we proceed, thinking that should happen on the template talk. We could call what we say there differently (some templates have "type") and/or use "Genre" only if different from opera, - open for suggestions. We should also accept that new cases may require new thoughts. We are making first steps. My approach would be to first try one infobox a day, discuss it and make changes as needed, as for example Joseph (opera), an article that was improved in the process and was viewed more than ever ;) Next: Louise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

awaiting feedback --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox moved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better than the current !Infobox, which is actually a navbox with only one link in it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec, Andy) formatted the second librettist, who seemed not of equal importance in the article, but is welcome ;) - Any number can be shown, - if too many of a kind, the list can be collapsed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing that the Joseph discussion has showed is that the original article was sorely wanting. It's a bit better now but still rather basic. The inadequacies of the article meant a lot of toing-and-froing over the proposed infobox. So may I gently suggest that before anyone roars ahead with infoboxes, the priority ought to be to ensure that the article is accurate and (at least a little) above basic standards. I won't prentend to be an expert on Louise, but the article is very thin to say the least. If there is editorial energy to spare, could it, in the first instance at least, be devoted to the article? That is, after all, what WP:OPERA is here for. The decorations can be considered later. --Smerus (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to replace the navbox with this infobox, which merely (inadequately) repeats information better covered in the article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of infoboxes is to repeat key points from the article. If you object to them on that basis, please set up an RfC to remove them from Wikipedia, in order that the level of community support for you view may be determined. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox opera
I support the restoration the Template:Monteverdi operas, and similar templates on other opera pages that seem to have been changed by one editor to Template:Infobox opera. See Pages that link to "Template:Infobox opera". If one can't find consensus for these changes why are they being made? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the changes for the Méhul operas, since we had a discussion at Talk: Joseph (opera), in which there did not appear to be consensus for this change, and it was changed back. But one editor went ahead in spite of that and changed it for all of that composer's operas. I don't find that acceptable, --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * please note that "one editor" added them BEFORE said discussion about Joseph (actually because of your comment about consistency, otherwise I would not have touched them), - check your premises, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I misspoke. --Robert.Allen (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, reply for the first entry) Infobox opera is an option supported by this project, see its Manual of style. Instead of seeing articles from the standpoint of "their" authors, I would be interested in knowing what readers think about the helpfulness of an infobox on the specific opera vs. a navbox of the other operas by a composer, which is covered twice, side and bottom. I understand that many readers don't even understand that they are able to uncollapse a collapsed section. We can "ask" our readers about an infobox only if we show them one, because I doubt that they will normally get to article histories and talk pages. - An opera typically gives time and location, - that's what an infobox can do, as a minimum. The navbox doesn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't read that as a mandate to use it, and I don't see there is a consensus to make these changes. In fact I now believe rather strongly it should be removed from the guidelines altogether. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, there is no mandate for anyone to make unilateral changes; and as you are aware, such changes will not necessarily have the support of editors. Readers don't seem to be deluging us with requests for extensive infoboxes, so your assumptions on what they might like are pure WP:OR. Please discuss case by case in the talk page for each opera, and one at a time, as we don't all have lots of spare time to deal with lots of things simultaneously. I suggest you might revert any changes you have already made in this respect.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don' read it as a mandate but an option. I use the option, I offer content, the author(s) get a feedback of how someone independent understands the article, I get reverted, I don't object. I am not used to ask permission for my edits, especially not when supported by a guideline. As a strong believer in structured information I suggest that we calmly and factually compare the pros of infobox vs. navbox (short for the collapsed box of operas by a composer, now traditionally in the right upper corner of opera articles where readers normally see an infobox). About the socalled OR, it was not my idea, but the observation (!) of another user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view, the implication of the option, particularly when added to long-established articles, is that it if any editors object, they can revert it then discuss on the talk page. It is perhaps most useful and less controversial for operas which don't have a header navbox, e.g. Bluthochzeit, Der Kaiser von Atlantis, etc. (There are more listed here.) My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so. If you all want to waste your time slugging it out over the issue (which mostly boils down to personal preferences), go ahead. I'm not going to get involved in these discussions any further. Please read Infobox redux above. Read all of it—it's not that long. It re-caps the story for those of you who did not participate in the discussions or in designing the box and are now objecting. As I said, there is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that while it is available, we do not recommend its use, or perhaps more accurately that there is no consensus among the members for its use. I've given my best shot at resolving this issue, which trust me, will not go away, whatever we do. Someone else can set up and monitor any future discussions, try to judge the consensus (if any), and then change the Article Guide. It won't be me. La vita è troppo bella e troppo breve. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your feelings on this. You've spent a lot of time on this issue and obviously tried to broker compromises. BTW, I don't entirely agree with your statement "where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable." The navbox at the bottom of the page doesn't seem nearly as convenient to me. For instance, if I'm trying to navigate through the articles on Wagner's operas on an iPad, I have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to find a link to the next opera. With my shaky fingers, this is a bit of a trial. But like you say, it comes down to personal preferences. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox vs. side navbox
Pros for infobox:
 * It supplies an image that gets close to the specific work, for example the composer at the time when he wrote it or a scene/stage from the opera
 * It is about the article, not leading the reader away as soon as he enters it
 * It supplies a date in templated form start date that can be used for sort, compare, calculate, and that can be rendered in different forms, cultures and languages - a service beyond the English Wikipedia
 * It supplies other key facts in structured form "at a glance" which is for some readers more accessible than prose
 * It is site-consistent
 * It can be more attractive
 * Wikidata will draw information from it. (see below)

Someone will be able to add the pros for the present navbox, besides "I like it" and "We always did it that way", then we can take a look. I don't intend to add any opera infoboxes right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another pro for infobox: Wikidata will draw information from it. It will not draw information from navboxes. -- kosboot (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Should not have to be an either/or. Infoboxes and Navboxes do two different things, the infobox at the top of an article provides data for that article, the navbox helps the reader find the NEXT article a person might want to read, hence is placed at the bottom... People are less likely to want to navigate away while still at the top of a long article if you do it this way.   Montanabw (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: it's a "competition" for the space on the top right of an article, where project opera traditionally has a navigation possibility to other operas/works by the same composer, called "side navbox" by me now, for differentiating. It serves a purpose where there are only a few such other works, and where there is no infobox, if you ask me: However, I think to offer navigation away from an article on top, to a reader who just entered it, is no concentration on the given article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox July 19
As Voceditenore predicted, the option to have an infobox resulted in discussions on several opera talkpages. I suggest that we handle there aspects of the particular work, but keep central pros and cons here. I still miss in the above section any pro for the side navebox in cases where a footer navbox is available. One comment from the reader's point of view was today:
 * As a reader I expect an infobox about *this* opera not a picture of Wagner with a hidden list of other operas. Agathoclea (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Open to discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

List of opera links in Template:Infobox operas
The list of Massenet's operas has been added to the infobox operas at La Navarraise. Having to edit this list in the infobox for every opera by Massenet is going to be quite tedious. I don't think this should be done this way. A single editable page with the list that can be included in Template:Infobox operas, probably via a named parameter should be created. But, since I don't see a consensus developing for the use of this template, perhaps that is a waste of time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * no more, Massenet has now a footer navbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * on more than one of the related articles I found a question that I answered on one (for all of these):
 * Duplicate navbox
 * A duplicate navbox has been placed in this article . Can we have an explanation please? Only one navbox is necessary. Is this an infobox manoeuvre by any chance? -- Klein zach  12:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The navbox was created in response to a concern by Robert.Allen on project opera. It connects the opera to other work by the composer also, is not "duplicate" but broader in scope and in the right position for a navbox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A step backwards: the footer navbox was removed, as "provocative", - no provocation was intended but help, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rigoletto
After a series of alarms and diversions, Gerda has kindly agreed to revert the infobox at Rigoletto in order to carry out a discussion on her infobox proposal.--Smerus (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Respected Smerus, your perception and reality are two things. Eusebeus reverted, the discussion is open again. As I pointed out on his talk, I am used to being reverted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, on thne run from Kiev to London I jumped to conclusions. Still, I am sure you are glad, Gerda.--Smerus (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If a few people had not jumped to conclusions on the "Wagner affair", Wikipedia would have fewer comments, more content. I am glad about the constructive discussion on Fatinitza and listening to yesterday's Bayreuth Siegfried ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Composer navbox
We need to discuss where a composer navbox should be and what it should contain. Example: Giuseppe Verdi. I go for a bottom navbox, open, covering many aspects, well organized: Giuseppe Verdi, comparable to Johann Sebastian Bach. Others prefer the "old" side navbox: Verdi operas. I don't mind to have both on one article. The latter template was improved, no problem with that. But then the other one was removed without discussion. Does that have support? Not mine. I started reverting with an explanation, but there are too many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind simultaneous presence of the top and bottom navboxes. although if we must choose one over the other, I prefer the top one. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's start pros for both then:

Bottom

 * Possibly open (uncollapsed)
 * Covering many aspects
 * Flexible organisation, because there is more space horizontally
 * Site consistency: it's the standard position for navboxes

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, you are saying one thing and doing another. 'We need to discuss where a composer navbox should be and what it should contain. Example: Giuseppe Verdi. I go for a bottom navbox...' But you don't discuss, you stick them up en masse before any discussion. If you do not practise what you preach, you lay yourself open to severe criticism, and possibly formal complaint. 'Consistency' starts with edtors. My contibution to the discussion: I entirely agree with Robert.Allen's opinion above. And therefore I am not interested in discussing the virtues or otherwise of the bottom navbox, which seems to me to be, albeit not grossly intrusive, entirely superfluous. What is the point of repeating information in articles - and of repeating the same old arguments here?--Smerus (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am learning. The need to discuss came only now. Verdi bottom navbox was not by me, and added in March. I inserted Méhul and Massenet, yes, and still think they are/were valid additions because of the virtues pointed out above. I see no conflict having both in one article, so there seemed no reason to discuss a clear improvement. What we need to discuss now is the request to have only one, because Verdi was removed without discussion from most of his operas. - If both are fine in one article, no discussion is needed, but then Verdi's operas should be restored, and Massenet's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: "most of Verdi's operas" - any navbox - per definition - should be present in all articles that it links to, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be 'present to all article it links to' - if it is agreed by consensus in the first place.....--Smerus (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How do we determine that consensus? Verdi is not only relevant to opera. The bottom navbox was an unquestioned good addition for more three months, discussed here! Why suddenly remove it without even asking? And if removing, why not at least consistently? That's what we need to discuss. The removal has no support from me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Das Liebesverbot
As at Goetterdaemmerung, I am reverting to the previous template the infobox installed at Das Liebesverbot, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article. As that wasn't undertaken, it can be carried out now on the article's talk page, and I am notifying the projects concerned.--Smerus (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After two more reverts (not by me) and still no added pros for the side navbox in the discussion above, I took this case to a more general discussion at Arb case/The Ban on Love, - interested to find out how to establish consensus in the future. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Vedontakal Vrop
I have created a new article for this opera. I have already provided it with an infobox, so Gerda needn't bother. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * i agree, this seems to be an appropriate use for Infobox opera. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And Smerus, was the "Gerda needn't bother" remark really called for, or was that just snark that failed to assume good faith? (or more bullying of Gerda by Smerus?) Montanabw (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Montanabw, your pestering of me across different pages is getting ever so slightly wearisome. Gerda and I understand each other pretty well; both she and I are grown up. Do you have nothing better to do than to go around libelling other editors? Please read Harassment. And, yes, this is a warning.--Smerus (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You'd be advised to strike that allegation pretty sharpish, per WP:NLT. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Censored . ~Love,--Smerus (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Smerus, I have only responded on a couple of pages where you have attacked Gerda. Apparently you can dish it out but you can't take it.  I'd advise the purchase of a mirror because you are being a bully even if you can't see it for yourself.  Montanabw (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admirer of the outstanding work of both Smerus and Gerda I'd like to say here that I know of no WP colleagues who are more colleaguely when dealing with colleaguely colleagues. (Forgive the prose, but you know what I mean.) Wikipedia would be the poorer without either. 20:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Götterdämmerung
I post this here, as well as on the Wagner project talk page. Users may like to know that, despite the controversiality surruroounding the infobox issue3, particualtly at present when editors' beahaviour re infoboxes is the subject of an arb case, Gerda Arendt has chosen this moment unilaterally to post an infobox on Götterdämmerung. I have reverted it, with my reasons at Talk:Götterdämmerung.--Smerus (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I chose the occasion to complete the Ring, expecting your revert. Some editors here try not to step on ladies' toes, look above. I am on a voluntary 1RR rule. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And of course Smerus puts in that godawful navbox that is just an infobox with different syntax. As an English speaker, I can only shake my head in dismay and say, "Götterdämmit" (that's a variant on "WTF" to those who are pun-impaired.)  (/snark) .   Montanabw (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can people please try to reduce the drama? I respect both David and Gerda and would rather that neither were subjected to whatever weird sanctions Arbcom or the crackpot admins at WP:AE think up. (BTW because of said crackpots, I have a high chance of retiring completely from WP as most arbs seem to be failing to reign them in.)--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Make that "rein" them in (LOL). Do note myself and one other editor have decided to ratchet down our own drama. Things rarely go well for anyone on any side at the drahmahz boards, it's true...   Montanabw (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Peter, what would opera be without a little dramah? Believe me, I am quite calm. I have a red cat on the bottom of my user, meaning that I don't let arbs, admins nor any other decide what I do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Opera navboxes and pictures
Right, since we're updating navboxes, I'd like to ask: Is it alright to put, say, a poster of the opera in there? Because, in some cases, it'd make the most sense to put the composer picture somewhere else, such as the background section. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, we are updating navboxes as footer navboxes. For Infobox vs. side navbox see above. I am still waiting for arguments for side navboxes, Did you know that Giuseppe Verdi vanished from most of his operas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I read that, but wasn't sure of the result of the debate, and wanted to avoid too much stepping on toes as a somewhat marginal member of the project (I mainly do images and code for it, though, admittedly, it's been a while since I did any truly major code work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As Voceditenore pointed out once, there are no important and marginal members ;) - If you can add something pro side navbox, it would be interesting. - The loss of the Verdi templates, however, is serious and hopefully not permanent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you can't avoid stepping on some toes ;) - If you are personally without passion for one side or the other, how about preferring not to step on the ladies's toes? (It's also the style of all recent DYK articles on opera.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplication of information wanted
Today, I have been termed "tremendous encourager", and I want to live up to it. Due to history, we have different ways of passing information, and I believe that this is not only acceptable but even desirable, because different readers may want it different ways. We duplicate information from the text to the lead, to a side navbox, to a bottom navbox, to an infobox, to persondata, - all valid. Project opera has a history to navigate to other operas (and sometimes works) by the same composer on the side. More recently, composer navboxes were introduced, which typically present even more information, look at Richard Wagner for example. I would have had no reasonable way to create Benjamin Britten as a side navbox.

My approach:
 * When a bottom navbox for a composer is available, it should be present in all articles to which it navigates. It can be simply one line (collapsing it) as in The Company of Heaven. There is no conflict with a side navbox, they can coexist, some readers will use one, some the other, most will hopefully read the article ;)
 * If an infobox is created for an opera by a composer who has a bottom navbox, it can replace a side navbox without losing information, - the reader will still have the navigation possibilities.

Can we take it from there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also found the bottom navbox for Prokoviev (Template:Sergei Prokofiev) was similarly helpful. And did not feel the operas navbox at the top at the same time was a problem, since it is more specific to the article topic. But if you replace the top navbox with an infobox, as I've said several times already, I feel you lose convenience in navigating, and gain nothing in information. However (putting in a plug for my own idea), I've often felt having always the same picture in the composer navboxes was a drawback, which is why I proposed being able to vary these, which also gives us additional opportunities to use these other portraits when they are available. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion about infobox vs. side navbox is further up, please add "pros" for a side navbox there, for easy comparison. Do you agree that the bottom navbox Giuseppe Verdi should be in the articles on his operas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It adds very little, but I won't remove it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be in every article that it links to, at least in collapsed state. It also may be expanded, who knows,- that's the great thing about templates, you change one spot, and all articles are improved. - However, it was reverted, and I don't want an edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Template demos
Re Gerda's comment above about how the title of this talk page was being oddly italicised... It appears to be the experimental navbox that Robert has transcluded here. I went to Template:Verdi operas/sandbox and added |italic title=no, which has fixed the problem. It does not affect the actual navbox (Template:Verdi operas) that is currently used in articles. I've mentioned before, obviously to no effect, that transcluding or pasting whole templates, navboxes, infoboxes, etc. on this discussion page is not a great idea. They take up loads of space, make the page harder to load, and can distort the formatting in other ways. We currently have a large infobox for a Charpentier opera pasted here and a lengthy Verdi navbox. If people have experimental templates or infoboxes they want to discuss, they should put them on a sub page and link to them. Ditto for images to be discussed. Simply link to the file or at most use a very small sample image (max 100px). People can click through to see the larger version. Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder, I typically look only at the top and the bottom of this page. I started my thought on the topic here, links to templates under discussion are on the talk, Sorry that I forgot to change here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly reasonable to post infoboxes (or most other templates; or thumbnail images) here for discussion. No other project seems to have a problem with this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox on talk page?
I thought that the best place to discuss an infobox which is removed from an article would be that article's talk page. Right or wrong? - For now, I place them on the templates under discussion mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriate to put a removed infobox on the specific article's talk page for discussion. I was talking about pasting infoboxes and navboxes here on the project talk page not being a great idea. But again, that's just my personal opinion. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I moved Louise, but will not touch the other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Opera red links III

 * Die Hamletmaschine by Wolfgang Rihm, after the play of the same title, - stage director of the premiere, Friedrich Meyer-Oertel, is for DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. ;) Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Miss Fortune by Judith Weir, substantial paragraph in her article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't got the time for this one, and I really prefer 19th century French and Italian stuff. It was completely panned by most critics. Here are some reviews, if anyone wants to take it on (they're quite amusing in their invective):, , , . Details of score, roles, synopsis etc. here. The title is a pun on the Sicilian folk tale on which it is based, Sfortuna (misfortune). More about the folk tale (originally written down by Giuseppe Pitrè and retold by Italo Calvino) here – Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One look at the first review proved that Miss Fortune is a good pun ;) - thanks for providing the material! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I made "her" a redirect to the paragraph in the composer's article, for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Fatinitza
My first new article in a long time. If anyone has access to a German-language libretto or score, please update the names, and change the cites for the names. I had three options, I went with the one I thought was nearest the German. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam, are you sure this was his 'first full-length opera'? German wikipedia calls it an operetta, and mentions a number of his operas, commencing with Virginia delle valle and Gertrud of 1837 and 1841. Best, --Smerus (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what the sources say. The context makes it clear the key word is "full-length" - his previous operas were shorter pieces - not a distinction between "opera" and "operetta". Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, the source I'd trust more calls it an operetta, so using that term. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Verdi Messa da Requiem
Did George Bernard Shaw describe the Requiem as "Verdi's greatest opera " or "Verdi's greatest work "? The internet seems equally divided. The original quote would be much appreciated. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't find the original quote where Shaw called it his "greatest opera". Although that assertion is made in various concert programme and liner notes, I wonder if it's apocryphal. Note that Hans von Bülow had attacked it as "Verdi's latest opera". Shaw did say this about the Requiem:


 * "It may be that, as with Handel, his operas will pass out of fashion and be forgotten while the Manzoni Requiem remains his imperishable monument. Even so, that alone, like Messiah will make his place safe among the immortals."


 * See Viva la Libertà!: Politics in Opera, p. 91. He also said that he wanted the "Libera me" from the Requiem played at his own funeral and apparently it was. See . Best,


 * Thanks for looking! I think you might be right about its apocryphal nature ... Scarabocchio (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the quote's factual attribution to Shaw is shaky, it has, as Voceditenore pointed out, gained wide currency, including the attribution. Not mentioning that in the Requiem article seems disingenuous. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd feel happier about working it in somehow if everyone could agree on whether it was "opera" or "work", but there's an even split. It's quite possibly derived from a paraphrase of the quote supplied by VdT, which would make it "work". Scarabocchio (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've had a much closer look at the attributions "on the internet" (as opposed to books and journal articles) and it's is not quite what it seems. The concert programs/announcements/reviews I was referring to merely say it's has been described as "Verdi's greatest opera", but don't attribute it to Shaw (or anyone else), ,. This newspaper article even describes the phrase as a "platitude frequently applied" to the Requiem. The sites that specifically attribute it to Shaw are ads on record selling sites  and comments on customer reviews. They are not reliable sources. I don't think you'll find any actual quote from Shaw which states baldly that it was his "greatest work" either. Brahms said of it "Only a genius could have written such a work", and Shaw per the quote above was obviously a great admirer of it. But I think that's about all you can or should say in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's not by Shaw, but it's a widely used phrase. Isn't verifiability what Wikipedia demands? And the punch of the phrase comes from describing the Requiem as "his greatest opera ", not merely "work". I still think it should be mentioned. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially since there are references that explicitly say that it is widely used. I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that when talking about Shaw's views on the Requiem, "Verdi's greatest opera" should not be attributed to him. There is simply no evidence for it. Attributing "Verdi's greatest work" to him isn't a good idea either. It's better to stick closely to what he actually said which was a lot more nuanced. Voceditenore (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, feel free to add it. I won't, for two reasons .. (1) we don't have the source for the short punchy version, so it's going to be either short+unsourced or lengthy, and (2) the link above to Viva la Libertà!: Politics in Opera, tells us that Shaw was commenting with no knowledge of Don Carlos, Boccanegra or Forza.  These absences (particularly the first) rather detract from the value of Shaw's POV (IMVHO).
 * If you really want to add more words to the Requiem article, something on Verdi and religion would be valuable. Scarabocchio (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think this comment should be seen in the long tradition of anecdotal 'quotes' about operas which have entered legend and "common knowledge" as having been said, but cannot be academically traced. E.g. Emperor Josef's 'Too many notes, my dear Mozart', Bulow saying that 'Rienzi was Meyerbeer's best opera', (and Hitler saying that 'with Rienzi, it all started'), Newman calling Tosca 'a shabby little shocker', etc. Personally I would leave it out. Or perhaps start another article, opera anecdotes. I hastily withdraw the last sentence. :-} --Smerus (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that strike out, Smerus. :) Seriously though, although Shaw had not seen all of Verdi's operas, he was a great admirer of him as an opera composer based on the ones he had seen. According to Shaw's biographer:
 * "He regarded Verdi as the greatest of living dramatic composers; and years before Shaw began writing musical criticism, when Von Bulow and others were contemptuously repudiating Verdi, Shaw was able to discern in him a man possessing more power than he knew how to use, or, indeed, was permitted to use by the old operatic forms imposed on him by circumstances."
 * Shaw's comment on the Requiem also has to be seen in the context of its time. By 1901, Verdi's operas were already starting to go out of fashion. Shaw's point was that even if they did, his Requiem would endure. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me for noting that a blockquote with italics and quote marks does not conform to MOS:QUOTE. (One of my pet peeves) --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, which is your pet peeve? MOS:QUOTE or blockquotes with italics and quote marks?. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was probably having a bad day when I added that... :-} --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Opera Quotes
On the subject of opera, Wikiquote has a single quotation with a source, and just six more unsourced quotations. Not one of them would I classify as positive about the art form. (Not that I have a problem with negative quotations as long as they are well-crafted. "Of all the noises known to man, opera is the most expensive", said (perhaps) Molière).

My own favourite (positive) quote is from Kasper Holten and is something like: "I am often asked why it takes 15 minutes to say 'I love you' or to die. The answer is that, in opera, we concentrate on the really important things in life".

While I'm chasing that one down, has anyone else had anything positive to say about opera? Scarabocchio (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This page may be of some use.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Hammerstein I was very positive, but then he would be.:) See here for his quote. Portal:Opera/Selected quote has the full list of quotes currently on rotation at the Opera Portal. Note that all quotes appearing there are required to have a stated source, although in some cases these can be from anthologies which have been published in print (not websites). You can find the source by clicking on the link at the top of each quote, e.g. Portal:Opera/Selected quote/17. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I see we are inevitably slinking towards that opera anecdotes article.....And I always thought that infoboxes were the worst that could befall.......--Smerus (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaack! I hope not. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly very far from my intention! Thanks for the link to Portal:Opera/Selected quote which I had missed completely. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of people are aware of the Opera Portal, or Wikipedia Portals in general, including editors. The Opera Portal averages between 20 and 30 page views a day., although for some reason it spiked to nearly 70 last December. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
You might be interested in this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I accepted the article and tidied it up. It's now at Der Waffenschmied. Thanks for letting us know. The vagaries of the AfC never cease to amaze me. It had 3 references to reliable sources, is an opera by a very notable composer, and the title was already red-linked from Music encyclopedia topics/10 and The opera corpus. Geesh! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true. AfC could always use more opera lovers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear opera lovers: I would like to speak in defense of the Afc declination of the above article. The notice did not say that the opera was non-notable, only that the references weren't supporting it.  Of the three references shown, one is a CD review by a knowledgeable reviewer, who praises it while indicating that this is one of the composer's lesser known works.  The second source is an off-line dictionary of music, with the title of the article not given, so it's difficult to tell what relevance it may have without seeing the book.  The third reference, as far as I can tell from the Google Books preview, has less than one sentence about the opera, and since page numbers are not given its hard to tell if there is more in this book.  I don't think it was "amazing" and "vagarious" that the reviewer wanted some improvement in the referencing before accepting the article, which would only have taken a few minutes of the writer's time, since Voceditenore had no trouble finding another reference.  In spite of his/her complaint, I would like to point out that one of our reviewers did bring the article to your attention.  Couldn't you just have thanked him and indicated that you'd like to have this happen again in the future? I review hundreds of articles, and I often leave notes about submissions at Wikiproject talk pages, but the derogatory comments above will make me less likely to post anything here in the future. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Derogatory? Voceditenore? Where? How? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

August Composer and Operas of the Month
I've used the August CoM and OoM to request some improvements/creations on articles related to Verdi in the run up to his bicentenary in October. See August Operas of the Month and August Composer of the Month. August tends to be slow, with many people on holiday, so we'll see how it goes. We can do the same thing for the run up to Britten's centenary in November. In the meantime, I'm off to Italy for a month with limited internet access (Hooray!) and unlimited Campari Soda (Hooray!). Best wishes to you all. Voceditenore (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel like it, throw Fatinitza in as well. I'd like to get that one to FA, largely due to not liking to leave an article I've made much before that state. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't thrown it in at the moment because the subject is so out of sync with the rest of the OoM. Maybe for a later month? Even so, in my experience calls for bringing an article to FA at the XoMs generally have little effect. They have more effect here on the talk page or by contacting specific editors. Voceditenore (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(Viva-Verdi, I've moved your 2 comments here out of the box that appears on the main Project page, but will add an abbreviated version to the box. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC))
 * Just fyi regarding the operas. I am in the process of working my way through every article and adding the "Composition history" and "Music" sections where they are missing, as many were for the early operas in particular.


 * As of 31 July, I am up to and still working on Il trovatore (although have recently done work on the Don Carlos article and, some time ago, on Ballo's composition history). Any help would be appreciated. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When I get back from my trip (after August 11 or so) I'd love to work on Inno delle Nazioni. My initial question is should it be called that, or "Hymn of the Nations"? -- kosboot (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Increases in page views
Just in case anyone has ever wondered... In the week and a bit between the final putting together of a performance history section and the performance at the Proms last night our page for The Midsummer Marriage got about 1,000 views. Which from my point of view, made the effort worthwhile. Thanks for the help from GT et al :)  almost - instinct 10:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Anatoliy Solovyanenko
Looks like y'all have got two articles on the same opera singer: Anatoliy Solovianenko and Anatoliy Solovyanenko. Could a project member please take care of the merge? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress prefers the Solovianenko spelling. -- kosboot (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I've merged into Anatoliy Solovianenko. I've also done some basic post-merge clean up but the article could still use a thorough copyedit and formatting of the references. The relevant maintenance tags have been added. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative images for opera composer navboxes
I created Template:Verdi operas/sandbox in order to try some code which I believe would allow an optional alternative image to be displayed on specific opera pages. For example, if this change were made to Template:Verdi operas, the code added to the page for a particular opera could be as follows: The result is shown to the right here. This would allow us to vary the portrait that is displayed for a particular opera. For instance, a portrait of the composer as he appeared around the time the opera was written might be used. If the parameter "altimage" is omitted, the default image would be displayed. See Template:Verdi operas/testcases for the original template compared to the two sandbox test cases, with and without the added parameter "altimage".

In Template:Verdi operas the value of the image parameter would need to be changed from this: |image=Verdi.jpg to this: |image= Similar changes could be made to other composer navboxes, e.g., Template:Meyerbeer operas, since for Meyerbeer we have a variety of portraits made at different times in the composer's life. Would this be an option other editors would be interested in having available? Are there any objections to adding it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea would be good, if only Verdi hadn't a bottom navbox which covers much more than his operas and makes the side navbox redundant. Save it for composers who don't have a bottom navbox? - I actually would prefer to create a bottom navbox for those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the botom navbox, but I don't think we have to remove the current opera navboxes at the top, just because a bottom navbox has been added. If we have to choose, I would prefer the one at the top. And I don't think it should be cluttered up with bits of info generally found in the lead, like the infoboxes that have been added to Rigoletto and Don Carlos. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support the altimage idea, and agree that it would be appropriate for Meyerbeer and others. I concur with Robert.Allen on top/bottom boxes.--Smerus (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You can simplify the code to: |image= Which I would highly recommend.

Few notes: Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) If you're going to allow the image to be changed, you should offer optional caption and image size parameters. These may be handled identically.
 * 2) There's no need to name the parameter "altimage", "image" is fine and consistent with other templates.
 * 3) If you want to allow either, you can use
 * Hi Adam, thanks for the help! Re, altimage, perhaps it makes it more clear the template has a default image, so i suppose that may be partly why i picked it, but that could be covered in the documentation. Lot's of params have default values. (Also, I wasn't sure whether it needed a different name or not.) If you have the time, please add your other suggestions to the sandbox. tnx! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All these features are now added, by the way. The caption was probably the hardest one to add - the core template didn't support it, so I had to do some major work to add captions back in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

A try out
See Robert le diable, with an experimental 'opera-specific' picture in the template and a pic of the compser at around the time he wrote it. Opinions welcome. This is an attept to find common ground in revamping templates with inviting material and using images at the head of the article which relate to its period, without enforcing the Procrustes bed of an infobox. Doubtless the pictures, texts, etc. used could be improved, they are of course not regarded by me as sacrosanct. I do beleive howeverthat something like this adds to the interest and informative content of the aticle without being distracting.--Smerus (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this both confusing and distracting. The image and caption look awful inserted as a thumbnail (these kinds of images in the navbox should be properly coded, if they're going to be used at all). However, the lack of the composer's image coupled with the cryptic collapsed "Operas" list makes what that navbox actually does even less transparent to the reader than it was before. Assuming an opera infobox is a non-starter with you, it's better to have the original navbox with composer's image or (preferably, in my opinion) an illustrative image on its own at the head of the article with a footer navbox. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Va bene, I shall go with your second option when I have a mo, as this idea has not found general favour either here or on the article talk page, and we will see what people say to that.--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better to restore the navbox. A vertical drop down list is easier to read and it's far more convenient to use, than these (also collapsible) horizontal lists at the bottom. They should be reserved for links that are less important. Besides there's nothing obscure about collapsible lists of links. They're found everywhere on the internet, even (believe it or not) in the Wikipedia left-hand side bar (of all places), where there isn't even the explicit word "show". I find it hard to take these particular objections to the Composer navbox very seriously. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What we see now doesn't say "opera" until the last word of the longish caption. - I think any vertical navbox is superior in arrangement to the narrow "drop-down". - The "obscurity" of anything collapsed was observed by Quiddity, see Evidence, quote: "Anecdote: I've never witnessed a friend/colleague click a [Show] button without prompting; and I have pointed them out to numerous people, all of whom were surprised. Hidden sections are hostile to readers." - I will not mention the unspeakable thing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Change of MoS without discussion
The option of infobox opera, installed by Voceditenore in the Manual of Style, was just changed, in Voceditenore's absence and without a discussion.
 * I will not revert but would like to see it restored and a change discussed first. The change to "... on individual operas for which a vertical composer navbox is inapplicable." is the opposite to the (not yet archived) words by Voce, "" (8 July), - a view which I share. I had to notify the ArbCom case, where the MoS was mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that change, for which there is no consensus whatsoever, merely the personal opinion of one editor (and possibly another) both of whom, for whatever reason did not participate at all in the discussion re adding the proposed infobox to the article guidelines. At no point in that discussion was it proposed that the infobox was an option only to be used when there was no vertical navbox available. Please see the discussion and its summary here, and even more to the point, my comments here. If you wish to change the current guidelines, fine, but do it properly. Set up a discussion, notify all the project members, monitor it daily to keep it on track, leave it open for at least two weeks for comment and then gauge the consensus based on the comments from all the actual participants for changing what we currently have. Voceditenore (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You may say that there has been no discussion or consensus, but there has been plenty of discussion and editing occurring for operas of several composers, including Mehul, Bizet, Verdi, and Wagner. The end result has so far been the retention of the Composer navbox. The only exception that I am aware of is Fatinitza, which is hardly a high profile page, so has not received the attention of, or been of concern to many editors. [I see that this is now the case for all of Suppe's operettas.] My edit was based on the observation of the results of all this to-and-fro, and what appears to me to be the current actual state of affairs. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The "back and forth" on the various talk pages of articles has basically ended with no clear consensus at all (and some did not mention the navbox at all) The thrust of those discussions was that some editors are so opposed to the opera infobox that they prefer just about anything else at the head of the article regardless of its appropriateness or usefulness. Conversely, others are so pro-infobox that they want that at the head of the article regardless of its usefulness or appropriateness. Thus the articles simply returned to their status quo ante, apart from Fatinitza. Having said that, it may be useful to add a caveat wording to the effect that replacing an existing vertical navbox with an infobox on long-established articles may encounter opposition because not all members of the project support that option. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not go near any side navbox right now ;) - Can we have a decent discussion of the one example mentioned below (with the arb case watching), and then talk again about the MoS? I would prefer if we could come up with a general recommendation, instead of me pleading like Abraham or humbly asking like Bach on each single talk page. It's fun for a while. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is only for Fatinitza (a GA) and the other works by the composer (for consistency) because I don't want more discussions but finish one first. (There are several operas with an infobox - see my user page for some that were recently developed by Voceditenore and me - but those didn't have a navbox first.) In the light of the arbcom case, I chose Das Liebesverbot, as by a major composer, but not a major work. (I also chose it because "The Ban on Love" rings a bell, with the ban of an excellent contributor and friend still pending.) I suggest to let the discussion go for two weeks and then look at the general wording of the MoS. I would like to find out how we can find consensus (or not) amicably and with respect. I am on a self-imposed rule of one entry to a discussion per day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to get involved in fits and spurts. Then I calm down and go back to editing real articles! --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

17,000 words
I have just finished archiving the threads here from June through the first week in August. You'll find them in Archive 115. The vast majority are related to debates about infoboxes and navboxes with comments simultaneously going all over the place and nowhere, and many of them containing unseemly sniping and bickering on both sides. If we include these two particularly unpleasant threads in Archive 114 from early August which another editor (quite rightly) archived early, this totals over 17,000 words (the length of my Master's thesis!) in the last two months alone.

Several members are so sick of these constant, fruitless, and at times personalised discussions dominating our project talk page that they've taken it off their watch lists. Lord knows how many prospective members we may have lost in the last few months after they've seen this talk page. It's quite clear that at the moment some editors have fairly entrenched positions and there is simply not sufficient common ground for us as a collective to come anywhere near an agreed "general recommendation". The world is not going to come to an end if we have to proceed without one for now. However, the relentless attempts to continue rehashing this may well be the death of this project. Can we please take a break from all this and revisit it in a few months (if anyone wants to) when people have had time to reflect on their positions and the dust has settled on the current arbitration proceedings and their aftermath. If infobox/navbox woes crop up at individual articles, leave a brief note here for editors who might feel like participating on the talk pages of those articles and simply leave it at that.

I live in hope. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of the case is: how do we find consensus, or if not, what then? My position (see above): let's look at one example, - for five months, why not, no rush. I will not add an infobox where a side navbox is in place until something is resolved, but I will feel free to add an infobox to opera articles where I don't see conflict. (If you see conflict, simply revert, I am used to it and will not argue.) - I don't get passionate over infoboxes, but people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to cause woes and left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)