Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 18

Archives Table of Contents

Page too long?
As a passerby who has looked at a number of different WikiProjects, can I make the observation that I think your main page is a bit too long? I'd suggest subpages. In particular, I'd suggest an WikiProject Opera/Article Content page that has all the information about the content of articles (including titles), but not eg. the list of requested articles. This would include the following sections: And possibly also:
 * Article titles
 * Guidelines
 * Templates
 * Categories
 * Infoboxes
 * Navigation box templates

This would make the main article significantly shorter and easier to deal with, and would probably make it easier to focus on what to do next.

-- TimNelson 09:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your observations. This is something we are aware of. We having been using sub-pages and will continue to do so. Some of the sections are frequently referred to (e.g. categories) so those ones will probably remain on the main page. Our editing is fairly complicated as it involves foreign languages for which we need guidelines. Obviously we don't want to put important information on sub-pages where it will not be noticed.--Kleinzach 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I think that TimNelson makes a good point. The Project page is very long and complicated and would benefit from reorganisation and an increased number of subpages.  I'll make a proposal along those lines tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 00:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me, however sub-pages are rarely accessed and almost never edited, so while they are good for parking or storing information, they are not so well suited to ideas being developed IMO. --Kleinzach 00:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I overestimated the time I might have available today, so haven't actually done anything except checking what these fabled sub-pages actually might be.  As it turns out, there aren't very many:


 * WikiProject Opera/Categories Supposedly talk about categories, but actually a parking-place for a categories infobox. Category talk - of which there's been quite a bit recently - actually happens at the Project's Talk page.
 * WikiProject Opera/User and project boxes Boxes for users, and banners for talk-pages. Many of these, especially the banners, seem to be used.
 * A list of translated English names Self-explanatory
 * Opera Work List This now seems a waste of space. It has a little more information than the opera corpus, but not everyone who adds items to, or amends, the corpus, knows (or remembers) to do the same here.
 * Article ranking Obviously, there are good intentions behind this, but it's too generalised, the criteria seem rather difficult to interpret, and, IMO, it doesn't really work for dealing with all of, on the one hand, people, on another hand, operas, and on yet another hand, things like genres and terminology. Plus we're still trying to get the actual articles up to scratch (Mozart!  Verdi!!) and ranking is still a lower priority.


 * These, of course, aren't all of the sub-pages that might be needed if the main page is slimmed-down, and most of them are somewhat off-centre anyway, but I'm curious - how do you know that the above sub-pages are rarely accessed? Is there some tool that I ought to know about but don't? --GuillaumeTell 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To take your last question first, I don't have a tool however I'm certain there's been little development of any sub-page (except the work list) after information has been parked there. Regarding the Opera Work List I'd be happy to to see this phased out now that The opera corpus is well-developed. (Article ranking IMO is a problem (perhaps the major problem) for us, which we need to discuss separately.)


 * What new subpages do you think we should create? I hope we keep the categories on the main page (perhaps compacted in the way I have been doing already). I suppose we could put some of the 'Guidelines' on a sub-page, though sections like the one on Trivia are important. 'Templates' is not so important. . . . The problem is that the guidelines etc. are all unimportant until someone tries to change the style of the pages, and we have to clean everything up. Having a long project page may be a lesser evil. -- Kleinzach 10:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I know this has been discussed before, but the main reason for previous opposition to the use of infoboxes seems to be aesthetically-based. If a new infobox template which was a little easier on the eyes was created, would people want to use it? I would personally be in favor of its use; infoboxes make it much easier to find basic info like composer, librettist, genre, premier, etc.. They seem to be a convention of popular music articles more than art music articles (WP:MUSICAL uses them, but not WP:CM), but I think that's one area where we could take a hint from our popular music compatriots. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the main reason they were deleted is they were encouraging users to add factually inaccurate information to this encyclopaedia (see the long debate at Project Composers for numerous examples). They were also redundant. --Folantin 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are various issues with infoboxes. If we think about print encyclopedias and how they work, it's clear that boxes can be effective to highlight special information but only when they are used sparingly. I don't know of any enclyclopedia where every article (or every biography) has a box. (Of course there are other problems . . .) --Kleinzach 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement of current consensus regarding infoboxes at WikiProject_Composers is somewhat more straightforward and unambiguous than the one we have at WP:WPO. Would anyone object to syncing them (mutatis mutandis)? Fireplace 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. It should read "...they should not be added or removed without first obtaining consensus...". Andy Mabbett 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should it read that way? That's clearly not the consensus on the talk page. I agree that if there are editors who have worked on a composer article in the past who wish to retain an infobox, a discussion should be had on the talk page. If, however, there is a single person engaging in edit warring simply to prove a point, that person should probably be ignored. Mak (talk)  15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't raise red herrings. Andy Mabbett 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify (as Kleinzach request on my talk page), I guess I'm proposing "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of infoboxes is often counterproductive on opera-related articles. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." I just see this as a change in form, not substance.  Fireplace 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Going back to Cielomobile's original point, which, though not stated in so many words, was about articles on operas and not about composers. The reason that infoboxes are inappropriate for articles on operas is that all the information that would be contained in the box ("basic info like composer, librettist, genre, premier, etc.") is normally contained in the first paragraph of the article. See, for example, Der Vampyr. An infobox alongside that para is a waste of space. An infobox instead of that para is going to make the article look rather odd. --GuillaumeTell 00:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of opera, A
Most of the definitions of opera I see on WP seem to have been written from a non-opera, 'theatre' point of view. I wonder whether we should have an 'Opera Project' definition to roll out when necessary? Ideally one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of (normal, straight etc,) music and drama.

I have just put the following definition up on the (rather obscure?) List of basic opera topics. It was hastily written and perhaps other people can improve it or develop it?

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

Edits? Comments? -- Kleinzach 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations on a series of 20-odd Verdi operas
As noticed by GuillaumeTell, User:Nrswanson has been adding text to a series of some 20-odd Verdi operas. I have checked Re Lear (an article about an opera never written). Falstaff and Aida and find that the text there has all been copied and pasted from Giuseppe Verdi, the official site. In the case of Re Lear it comes from. Given the scale of this activity (involving background sections, synopses and role lists) what is the best way of handling it? Is some kind of admin action needed? -- Kleinzach 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just revert it and leave a friendly notice for the user (uw-copyright may work). We mustn't violate copyrights; however, the user may not be aware this is a problem, so we should assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed... the copyright rules here are not obvious, especially to newcomers. Make sure not to bite potential participants! Fireplace 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people also have the notion the internet is all public domain. Anyway, I warned the user. If this continues, I'd head for ANI and get an admin's attention. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I do agree - no-one wants to fry a new contributor - however the scale of the work is the problem. There are so many articles involved. It would take a considerable amount of time to go through all of them. Ideally the user should remove the material him/herself. Thanks to Heimstern Läufer for posting the formal warning on the user's Talk page. -- Kleinzach 02:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say that all synopsizes, backgrounds etc added by Nrswanson are copy/paste from articles from www.giuseppeverdi.it/. I do not want to delete them but I think this is too much. They are exact “match” words by words. I ran through 8 articles.. and decided not to continue for the rest. What do you guys think? To me, it is OK to see "red" links or stubs, but it is so bad to see these kind of copy/paste that made up 60% (some 80%) of the article. To Nrswanson, no offense but you cant copy other people's works. -Jay 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done checking 8 articles! I only did 3. (I don't know how this user got so much material up in such a short time.) It does have to be removed. Can anyone suggest a way of dealing with it? I don't have time to go through all the pages reverting everything myself. (The user hasn't responded to any messages.) -- Kleinzach 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted /edited Aroldo, Les vêpres siciliennes, Stiffelio, Luisa Miller, Oberto (opera) .. more when i have the time. - Jay 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just left a message on the user's page that I hope he or she will take to kindly. The standard warning templates get the point across, but they're not always exactly friendly, and I wanted to be sure that the user didn't feel picked on. -- Kyok o  14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've worked my way through the Verdi operas template from Un giorno di regno to Jérusalem. I masnadieri was the only one that didn't need attention.  I retained the lists of roles, altering them to our usual style.  I was about to start on Il corsaro, but I see that the creators of the roles are also listed (near the bottom):  I don't think those names really violate copyright, so they should be put into a table with the roles in our usual style, and I feel like a break just now! --GuillaumeTell 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "Background" sections from Otello, La forza del destino, and Simon Boccanegra, which were all taken directly from the http://www.giuseppeverdi.it website mentioned earlier. -- Kyok o  17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Il corsaro now done - only 5 or 6 more to go, if that. --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now dealt with all the other operas that weren't dealt with by Jay or Kyok  o .  For the record, User:Nrswanson seems also not to have got round to Rigoletto or Un ballo in maschera and only added a "Background" heading in Don Carlos. --GuillaumeTell 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Roles format
I changed the format for roles (and changed “characters” to “roles”) for Verdi’s operas. There were in various formats before, so I chose one that I think looks good. You guys could change it to any format you like, but let’s standardize to one. The format I changed (below):- I leave the format in I masnadieri and Il corsaro because they are in frame formats. All Puccini’s opera roles are using “frame format”, I think it looks better. - Jay 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aida, an Ethiopian princess (soprano)
 * Yes I prefer 'roles'. (The word 'characters' is not widely used in the opera world AFAIK.)
 * Regarding typography, how about:
 * Aida, an Ethiopian princess (soprano)
 * -- Kleinzach 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, per WP:WPO, the standard format is the framesetting exemplified here. Frames are preferred because it allows for a tidy presentation of premiere casts.  In practice, the formatting varies somewhat article to article (consistently is ridiculously difficult to achieve on wikipedia). Fireplace 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. Then it should be:
 * Aida, an Ethiopian princess (soprano) - in frames!
 * -- Kleinzach 03:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I like the frames too! They are more organized - Jay 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We should also note that the point of frames is to include the role creators. -- Kleinzach 05:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Lear up for deletion
I have put the (newly created) page on Verdi's Re Lear up for deletion. This may be of interest so I'm noting it here. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 10:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)