Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 20

Archives Table of Contents

Les Boréades and other operas with problematic dates
I have no strong objections to this category as such but could I just ask people not to apply it where there is a great deal of ambiguity over the performance or composition history? For example, categorising Les Boréades as a "1770 opera" gives an extremely simplified and distorted impression of its tangled history. Thanks. --Folantin 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, Folantin, but I'm sure that there is a solution in those cases other than simply removing any year category. Les Boréades was first performed in 1770, so that doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable categorisation. However, like some other operas, (such as Der Kaiser von Atlantis), you are right to point out that there are other significant dates. In cases where there has a long delay between composition and first performance (roughly a decade or more) I have categorise under both composition date and first performance; in the case of Les Boréades it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to put in either a) Category:1760s operas or b) Category:1763 operas and Category:1770 operas. How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as I have explained it is by no means clear to me that categorising Les Boréades as a "1770 opera" is of any encyclopaedic use. These categories are not straitjackets and if they are going to be used in this way I think they are best put up for deletion. In most cases it is fair enough to classify operas by date, but in ambiguous examples I think we should avoid doing so altogether rather than confusing people by adding multiple dates. --Folantin 13:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, the category is not a straitjacket: adding one date to it does not mean that others are not significant. Nonetheless, in that case, the year 1770 is when the opera was first performed, so why do you say question whether it is of any encyclopaedic use? Any category (whether by genre or language) necessarily simplifies; the situation is explained very well in the article's lead section. But removing it from Category:1770 operas simply mean that readers browsing the operas-by-year category tree won't find it. How does that help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you are using it really is a straitjacket, if you can't see how describing Les Boréades outright as a "1770 opera" distorts and simplifies the complexity of its history. Are you going to categorise Nélée et Myrthis as a 1974 opera? I've really had enough of discussing irrelevant, peripheral trivia like categories and infoboxes over the past month. Let's get back to some actual editing. --Folantin 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Folnatin, I realy don't like the tone of your reply. I have suggested alternatives, but you seem to think that for some unspecified reason it is best that this opera has no marker in historical time. It was written in the 1760s; it may have been first performed in 1770; and it was revived in 1963. We can mark it in several different places in time, or we can mark it more vaguely (by century or by decade), but it remains a product of the mid 18th century. ''Of course' categories simplify -- they aren't essays -- but I respect your decision not to discuss the issue any more, and I have recategorised the article under 1763.  Good luck with whatever else you are working on (you don't have to discuss this stuff if you don't want to!). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had taken a different attitude, maybe I would have taken a different tone. Clearly, compromise is beyond you and you insist that everything must go into a category whether it is helpful or not. Les Boréades falls into the same category as Rameau's Nélée et Myrthis, Zéphire and Io in that its date is unknown. Assigning any of these pieces to a specific date would be a violation of WP:NPOV given the continuing scholarly controversy about them. Is it really so difficult just to leave such anomalous items alone? You'd be wiser to remove your latest edit since you seem to have broken the three revert rule. --Folantin 16:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you said that you were going to go back to someting else?
 * Anyway, it seems that you have misunderstood or are misrepresenting the situation here. It does not seem to be the case that its date is unknown, but rather that its date is not precisely known (there is a difference).
 * Rameau's earliest compositions were in 1706, and he died in 1764, so unless here is a dispute about Rameau's involvement in these operas, these are 18th-century compositions. If there is such a dispute, it should be noted and referenced in the articles, but until then it is quite proper to categorise articles on the basis of the information actually contained in them. (If there is a notable query Rameau's authorship, then the articles as currently written are deeply misleading and should be pruned rapidly).
 * So the only question which makes sense to me is whether the opera can be categorised more precisely than in 18th century operas. Would you prefer it to be categorised under Category:1760s operas?
 * As to refusal to compromise, please re-read your comments. I have suggested several different approaches, but you have just insisted that that no date-based categorisation is possible. The idea of "compromise" which you have display here is that I should just accept your view, and not argue back.  Sorry to disappoint, but I will not be bullied into silence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of this debate is "Category: Operas by year". You wanted to class "Les Boréades" by specific year and I asked you not to. Obviously if you're now saying it's a case of categorising these pieces by century, then I have no objection, but that wasn't your position before. I'm not "bullying" you; I could have reported you for that "three revert" violation yet I didn't. With any luck, you'll be done here soon and the rest of us can get back to adding substantial information to opera articles instead of racking up easy edits by slapping category tags everywhere. --Folantin 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Folantin, you should have re-read the discussion above before continuing your incivility. If you had re-read it, you would have seen that I offered alternatives at several points, but you refused to discuss them. Anyway I will post a longer response below: I have had enough of your bullying rudeness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See my longer response below at A redux, then over-and-out. In he circumstances, I regret that I will not be following the rest of the discussions here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

On 16 May I wrote: ''I am not opposed to some kind of categorization by date, or period, but as Moreschi sensibly explains above we need to have a viable system that has been discussed and defined,. . . . There are lots of anomalies, especially with early works, and we would need a systematic approach to deal with them.''

I'm disappointed to see that nothing has been worked out and instead this dialogue, which both I and Makemi tried to guide in the direction of a compromise, has turned into an edit war.

This 'Operas by year' project can only be carried out in mutual respect and cooperation. It's essential that everybody has confidence in the way it's set up - and that means it must be accurate. If we can't do this then it should be abandoned. We don't want to waste our time with Category:Operas by year when there are more important things to be doing. -- Kleinzach 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously there should be a clear rule. BrownHairedGirl has, I believe, been using (1) composition date or (2) (if composition date is unavailable) first performance date or (3) (if composition date and first performance date are far apart) both or (4) (if there is confusion) the century only.  That seems reasonable, although (3) looks kind of funny on opera pages -- I might just use composition date in those cases.  Whatever the rule is, it should probably be on the category pages.  Also, I'd advocate a broad interpretation of "confusion" under (4) -- given the limited value of categories as navigational tools (discussed above), I think more harm than good is done by having precisification with these categories when there is any room for doubt.  Fireplace 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When BHG started doing this, I thought I'd look out for a couple of problematic cases:
 * War and Peace (Prokofiev) is actually in Category:1940s operas, which is not unreasonable, as the original version was composed between 1941 and 1943, and the first staged performance was in 1946. But it could equally be designated as a 1950s opera, given that Prokofiev  carried on revising the opera up to 1952, and more and more complete versions were staged throughout the 50s.
 * Der Ring des Nibelungen is in Category:19th century operas, also fair enough, given that the period of composition was approx 1853-1874. However, the individual operas are a bit more problematic:  Das Rheingold and Die Walküre were composed 1853-4 and 1854-6, but are in Category:1869 operas and Category:1870 operas (dates of first staged performances).  Likewise, the other two are also given the dates of the first staged performances (1876), though they were composed  1856-71 (Siegfried) and 1869-74 (Götterdämmerung).


 * One problem here seems to be that not very many Wikipedia articles on operas actually give composition dates (much of my info above is taken from the Viking Guide). In principle, they all should, but we are still occupied in trying to fill in more urgent things, like missing synopses, lists of roles, recordings, etc., and the major (often the only) date that's in practically all articles is that of first performance.


 * (As for Les Boréades, I'd have thought that Category:1760s operas would do just fine. Or might it have been written in the 50s?) --GuillaumeTell 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might have been written in the 1750s as its (presumed) librettist died in 1759. Virtually everthing about the history of this opera is an enigma. We know it was written before 1763, but that's about it. --Folantin 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Composition dates are often difficult to obtain and open to interpretation. Very few of the opera articles have them. I can check but I think it's less than 10 percent. -- Kleinzach 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, composition date is often unknown or, even if it is, it may be spread across several years. Performance dates are usually recorded but are misleading if the premiere was a long time after composition (especially if it was posthumous). As Fireplace says, if there is any ambiguity it is best not to categorise. I agree with Kleinzach and would rather we got back to successful collaborations like the "Composer of the month" or fixing core pages on "national" operas instead of agonising over the finer points of taxonomy. --Folantin 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. We also have to remember that the way a composer worked changed enormously over time and genre. Let's compare Rossini with Wagner. Rossini worked rapidly and recycled music from work to work while Wagner mulled over his great operas for decades. In the end the significance of composition dates is questionable - especially if the information is tabulated without context rather than explained carefully in text. -- Kleinzach 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, the rule should be: First performance date; if unclear, then century only. Yes? Fireplace 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, that would be reasonable. Unfortunately BrownHairedGirl has gone ahead with her own undefined and unexplained categorization. I see she has now recategorized Les Boréades for the 5th time. After her 4th edit I unsuccessfully asked her to use the article Talk page to try to resolve the issue without resorting to edit warring. -- Kleinzach 08:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you will be aware from reading the discussion above, I did try to discuss the issue, on this page. Unfortunately Folantin's persistently rude responses and refusal to actually read what I wrote made that a useless exercise, which is why I won't use this project page to discuss anything further. It's a pity, because a project can be a useful place for collaboration, but it fails if some project members set about trying to drive others out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe Folantin contributed the substance of this article. He is the most knowledgeable person here on French opera. He deserves respect, not edit warring.


 * Opera Project participants do not edit war. If you want to be accepted by other Wikpedians then you must learn to listen to people. No one is right all the time, no one has a monopoly of knowledge. We all make mistakes. We all have to admit when we are wrong. If you ask for advice first before taking decisions then you won't fall on your face later on.


 * Incidentally I see you are now reverting my edits as well. What's that? Your 5th reversion or your 6th? -- Kleinzach 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach, dialogue is a 2-way street. I listened to Folantin, but as above, he refused to listen to me. You are quite right that "We all make mistakes. We all have to admit when we are wrong", so why don't you apply that to Folantin's mistakes and his subsequent rudeness rather than to the person he chose to sneer at? If somebody knowledgeable believes that someone else misunderstands something, there is a very simple solution: to explain why they take a different view, not to simply insist that "this distorts the history". Assertions don't persuade, but explanations can be discussed.
 * It's great to have knowledgeable people around, but that knowledge is not much use to a collaborative process if it is delivered in sneering, uninformative comments. Folantin clearly has a good understanding of the history of that opera, but the facts involved are rather simple, and it does not take an expert in the subject to consider how to apply those to the category system.
 * BTW, you reverted my edit: you added a superfluous category contrary to wikipedia guidelines, so it's a bit cheeky to accuse me of edit warring.
 * If you want things to be discussed here, then it would be advisable to help to ensure that it becomes a place where people can come to discuss things without being sneered at by the longer-established members of the project who want to drive them out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are all your edits and summaries:


 * 08:22, 21 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (rm. Category:Operas (no need to include an article in a category and its parent, per WP:CAT))
 * 23:05, 19 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (add Category:18th century operas; a more precise date tag can be added if agreed. Edit warring could have been avoided if the Folantin had actually discussed the issue, rather than sniping)
 * 00:48, 19 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (Category:1763 operas (since the 1770 performance isn't acceptable to one editor, let's categorise it by the year of composition))
 * 00:13, 19 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (Category:1770 operas, because it was first performed in 1770. Of course other dates are relevant too, and they are covered in the first para of the article)
 * 06:37, 18 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (categorisation under Category:Operas by year using AWB)
 * 03:21, 18 May 2007 BrownHairedGirl (categorisation under Category:Operas by year using AWB)

Why didn't you use the Talk page to discuss the problem with Folantin? -- Kleinzach 11:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When Folantin raised a problem, he raised it here rather rather than on the article's talk page. The discussion could have been moved, but I thought it better to try to continue the discussion where it was started rather than the potential disruption of moving it.
 * However, I don't think it would have made any difference where the discussion had taken place. Folantin's refusal to either read what I had written or to discuss any position in between categorisation by a particular year and by no date-based categorisation was always going to make it hard to reach a solution. His increasing rudeness made it impossible.
 * Part of the problem here is that some members of this project seem to have a bit of a tendency towards WP:OWNership of articles, which is why we have so many comments along the lines of "I don't want to discuss this now". That's fine &mdash; nobody is obliged to join in a discussion on a matter in which they they don't want to be involved &mdash; but the misunderstanding is the apparent assumption that because some people don't want to discuss something, nobody else can work on that area.
 * Anyway, I see that the article Les Boréades is now protected, which seems like a good idea. If anyone wants to propose further changes (such as your desire for duplicate categorisation), it can be proposed at Talk:Les Boréades (mark it with editsummary to catch an admin's attention). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * However Folantin did not revert six times. You did. -- Kleinzach 08:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A redux, then over-and-out
Folantin, this is a reply to your comment of 09:10, 19 May 2007.

It would help everyone if you would be kind enough to please stop being so offensively sneering, particularly when you are wrong. This sort of hostility has already driven other people away from participating in this project, and would help a lot if you were to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as to read what has actually been written before you reply.

Anyway, I'm very grateful to clarifying what I had begun to fear might be your aim: to drive me away You wrote after more sneers, you wrote "With any luck, you'll be done here soon". You're in luck, but that may not be such good news as you hoped.

As you will be aware, there are tags on many of the talk pages of articles on Opera saying " The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!" ... and as soon as I began participating on this page, I was warned by another editor that a welcome was unlikely. I assumed that one editor's unfortunate experience was just a one-off, but sadly that does not seem to be the case :(

As you will all be aware, a project does not "own" any pages: it is just a place where editors can collaborate, not a walled garden or an exclusive club. You will also presumably be aware that a project does not make wikipedia guidelines or wikipedia policies unless it goes through the usual wikipedia formal processes for creating them; so all a project does is to provide a space for collaboration. If you drive people away, all you achieve is to ensure that the work is done without collaboration. That's your choice: since I'm clearly not wanted on this project, I'll clear off ... from the project'.

Please note that by clearing off "from the project", I definitely do not mean that I will stop editing articles on operas or related subject. I will continue to edit them in accordance with wikipedia policy and guidelines, as any editor is entitled to do ... but I will not discuss any of those edits on the project pages. I see no need to expose myself any further to Folantin's rudeness, and if the project tolerates a practice of driving people away, don't expect the discussions on the project page to be considered as representing a consensus.

On the substance of what Folantin wrote:
 * I did not do 3 reverts. Read the WP:3RR policy and check the revision history.
 * I did not create the section heading for this discussion, but the decade and centuries categories predated it. Section headings can be a useful guide, but its better follow the substance of a discussion than to assume that a heading tells the whole story
 * I categorised Les Boréades under 1770, because it was noted in the article as the date of the first performance. You subsequently queried that citation (with what seems like good grounds), but when I added the category, it was not queried, and you did not explain that you thought the performance date to be suspect.
 * When you raised the problem with me, I responded on 10:33, 18 May 2007 with a few suggestions, saying "a) Category:1760s operas or b) Category:1763 operas and Category:1770 operas. How does that sound?" (Note that the first category is a by-decade category, not an by-year category
 * Your response was to ignore those suggestions, and to say "No, as I have explained it is by no means clear to me that categorising Les Boréades as a "1770 opera is of any encyclopaedic use." (13:34, 18 May 2007)
 * Thereafter you began to get ruder and ruder:
 * At 15:52, 18 May 2007 you wrote: ''"I've really had enough of discussing irrelevant, peripheral trivia like categories and infoboxes over the past month. Let's get back to some actual editing"
 * I replied at 16:10, 18 May 2007, pointing out again that "I have suggested alternatives".
 * You responded at 16:35, 18 May 2007 saying "Clearly, compromise is beyond you".

I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste time dealing with this. I offer suggestions, asking for comments, and you ignored them, then accusing me of refusing to compromise. If suggesting other options and asking for comments is refusing to compromise, then we are pieces of fruit.

For the record, I am not "racking up easy edits by slapping category tags everywhere": I am trying assist readers by adding a missing part of the category tree, and I have successfully created similar by-year category trees in other areas.

I had hoped that it might have been possible to have worked on this one in co-operation with other editors, but it seems not. There are several decent and civil editors active in this project, and I'd welcome a message on my talk page from any of you if you want to discuss anything in relation to my editing or categorisation of articles on opera .. or indeed on how to make your project the welcoming place which it claims to be. If that is what the other project members want (and I do think it probably is, because most of you seem nice enough) then you have a problem on your hands, and I wish you luck in dealing with it ... because unless you can achieve that, any consensus reached here isn't worth a hill of beans.

Unless things change, this is over and out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, nice of you to assume good faith and all that. You've clearly read the edit history to the article itself where I politely asked you Please don't add a year category for this opera which has a very complicated history. Straightforward assertions that "Les B" was a "1770 opera" don't help. Thanks. It's obvious from the article itself (however inadequate) that this is the case. I said I had no strong objections to your scheme in general and merely asked you not to apply the year category to ambiguous cases, but you insisted on doing so. Categories are blunt instruments because they can't be referenced or sourced, so care needs to be taken to avoid violating WP:V and WP:POV. You've steamed through trying to assign specific dates to what seems like the entire opera corpus in a couple of days. It was obvious that problems were going to arise. Virtually every edit I've seen by you is categorising something or other over a vast range of topics. You can't possibly know enough about all those subjects to avoid making mistakes and you don't appear to take the time to consider all the problems that may arise. When people point them out to you you react with incredible hostility. Now I see you are trying to start some kind of vendetta against me both on this page and here . I don't intend to play along and will do my best to avoid you in future if at all possible. But if you insist on pursuing this kind of thing, I will respond appropriately. I've spent my own free time today translating over 2,000 words of Italian for Wikipedia. I wonder if you've been quite so productive. Well, enough of this bickering, I've got better things to do. --Folantin 20:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I certainly did not interpret the message on my Talk Page which you cite above, as an attempt by BrownHairedGirl "to start some kind of vendetta" against you. I had offered my encouragement to BHG on her efforts and as far as I was concerned she was simply giving me an update and sharing disappointment at her lack of success with members of this Project. The tone of postings on this page and elsewhere directed to "newcomers", "outsiders", "interlopers", etc. was sufficient for me to form my own conclusions; I didn't need BHG's input on that score. Thanks though, for visiting my Talk Page.  You should leave a message next time - Cheers!  Nick In BigD  (Hey!) 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when people are talking about me behind my back on public pages, you'll forgive me for eavesdropping. I've never referred to "outsiders" or "newcomers" pejoratively on this page. As for "interlopers", that misinterpretation was explained long ago. --Folantin 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Folantin, you are quite funny. You still don't seem to have noticed that I did try to discuss a solution, but you didn't listen. I have not reacted with any hostility to anyone else -- only to someone who repeatedly ignored my suggestions and told me to go away because they didn't want to discuss it.  There were several possible solutions, and we eventually found one, but only because I persisted in trying to find a solution to ambiguous cases.
 * You do have a big problem, Folantin, if you want to work collaboratively on wikipedia. If you don't want to discuss things you don't have to, but if you do want to engage with someone else's work, you need to try harder to understand what was said, and not to accuse people of reluctance to compromise when compromises had twice been offered and ignored. Now you are at it again: you refer to the discussion, but only quote yourself. (Hint: try reading what the other person writes).
 * Good luck with your translation. I hope that you read the source text a lot more carefully than you read our discussions.
 * And don't worry, I have no vendetta against you. Life is too short to try communicating in writing with someone reluctant to read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You do have a big problem, Folantin, if you want to work collaboratively on wikipedia. Funny, I don't seem to have had much trouble collaborating with members of this project and elsewhere. I have problems with people trying to force square pegs into round holes. I have not reacted with any hostility to anyone else. Then what's this? One of your edit summaries on this page: reply to someone who patronisingly asumes an editor who diasgree with him/her "misunderstands the nature of opera". Judging by what you've said about your prior conversations elsewhere, it looks like you came here prepared to assume bad faith too. I'm not really going to be told to read more carefully by someone who manages to categorise articles at the speed you do. Your edit history shows you sometimes attaching category date tags at the rate of two a minute. I can't really believe you read the composition and performance histories of those operas carefully in so short a time. Had you done so, this conversation could probably have been avoided. --Folantin 21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On that edit summary, try reading the comment to which it was attached, and the comment to which it replied. Assuming someone's else's ignorance is patronising, but having observed that, we both restored the tone and moved on.
 * Your point on reading times is more interesting: it doesn't take long to read a well-written article and find the relevant sections on dates: 30 seconds is very generous in the case of the many stub articles. (The date I used in Les Boréades was a performance which was not contested until after I had categorised on that basis, and as stated then it corresponded to a publication date.).
 * It shouldn't take much longer to read and understand my brief reply which concluded with "a) Category:1760s operas or b) Category:1763 operas and Category:1770 operas. How does that sound?" ... but you apparently managed to read that and continue to snidely accuse me of refusing to compromise.
 * Now, I don't know how long you took to read the 130 words in that comment, but however long you took, it wasn't long enough for you, was it? Because 36 hours later, you still don't acknowledge that it was written, and still think that you were within your rights to snipe away at me for "refusing to compromise".
 * I assume good faith, but as per WP:AGF, I don't retain that assumption when I am confronted with such clear evidence to the contrary. Anyway, time to get back to some categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think these categories are very useful- surely it is much more interesting to know operas that are made within an era not in individual years, at least by decade anyway, preferably by quarter or half century. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that depends partly on the perspective from which the reader approaches the category, and there are several ways in date-based categorisation of operas might be used.
 * Someone primarily interested in opera, looking for what happened in opera in a particular time period may want to look at new operas over the course of a longer decade, in which case categorisation by decade is most useful
 * ... or they may have more precise needs, e.g. asking what other operas came out in the same year as the Mikado, in which categorisation-by-year is most useful
 * But someone taking a wider look at the events of a particular year (perhaps from a cultural history perspective) will find a lot of other things categorised by year, and if they are going through the year category they won't find the operas if they are categorised by decade
 * So I think that decades would suit some readers, and years would suit others; but someone interested in a decade-based view can use the by-year categories, because each by-year-category is parented in the decade category, and there is a navigation box to make it very easy to jump between them. However, if there isn't a by-year category, then people who want the by-year categorisation don't have it at all ... and that seems to me to be a much greater inconvenience to them than having the decade broken up by year is to other group of readers. Furthermore, categorisation-by-year is increasingly widely used on wikipedia, so the possibilities for cross-referencing are growing.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)