Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 93

Archives Table of Contents

Transwikied articles for clean-up
There have been quite a few opera-related articles transwikied recently, mostly from the Italian Wikipedia, and probably more to come. Almost all of them need copyediting as the translations are not idiomatic and are sometimes rather misleading. They also need proper links to other articles (many of the red links in the articles would probably be blue if the correct name were used), formatting of opera titles, etc. Several lack sufficient references as well, although only one is completely unreferenced. I'll list them here, for anyone who'd like to tackle polishing up one or two when they have some spare time.

Stefano Gobatti &bull; Luigi Bolis &bull; Lando Bartolini &bull; Gaetano Bardini &bull; Basilio Basili &bull; Lamberto Bergamini &bull; Angelo Bendinelli &bull; Armando Bini &bull; Adolfo Bassi

– Voceditenore (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Two mildly interesting things about the above list: first, the only one that I've heard of is Lando Bartolini, and, second, almost all of them have surnames beginning with B.  Maybe all the "A"s have already been done? --GuillaumeTell 17:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bartolini was the only "B" I'd heard of too, although apparently Bolis created roles in two very obscure operas. They're pretty minor figures and difficult to source. The Italian WP is quite cavalier about unsourced articles, the "facts" in which they assume people will take on trust. However, Gobatti (who composed one of the operas that Bolis was in) is a fascinating character, and I'll try to expand that one. As for the string of "B"s, the transwikiers are simply working their way through it:Categoria:Tenori italiani. All the "A"'s (4) already have articles here. I suggested perhaps working via red links at Music encyclopedia topics, The Record of Singing, and The Opera Corpus rather than plowing through categories. But I guess they have their own way of doing things... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Operas by language
Hello all. I have a question about the Category:Operas by language. I just created an article on Menotti's The Last Savage. In this case the composer wrote the original libretto in Italian, but the opera premiered in French. To make matters more complicated, this opera has been mounted only four times, twice in English and once each in Italian and French. So what category (or categories?) should I use for this opera?4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A parallel case is The Love for Three Oranges, Russian libretto but premiered in French. The WP article has it in both categories, so I'd suggest both Italian and French for ''L'ultimo selvaggio'. --GuillaumeTell 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria discography
For information: the above discography has now been created as an adjunct to the main article, which in its expanded form should be completed early next week. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

March Operas of the Month
Suggestion (if nothing else emerges by tomorrow (the 28th), I'll add this to the template:
 * The operas of the month for March are are six French language operas ranging from the Baroque era to the 21st century
 * Lully's Bellérophon (1679) – a minimal stub needing expansion
 * Rameau's Les fêtes d'Hébé (1739) – a minimal stub needing expansion and references
 * Adam's Si j'étais roi (1852) – needs Performance history and Synopsis sections
 * Massenet's Hérodiade (1881) – needs Performance history and Synopsis sections
 * Février's Monna Vanna (1909) – a minimal stub needing expansion and references
 * Philippe Boesmans' Julie (2005) – a minimal stub needing expansion and references

- Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd replace Monna Vanna with Monsigny's Le déserteur. Février's opera got a look in at CotM last January. Monsigny would give more historical spread, filling in the gap between the 1730s and the 1850s. --Folantin (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

March Composers of the Month
Yikes! February only has 28 days! I suggest we use to this turn some of the red links blue on GuillaumeTell's List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival. Example below.


 * The composers of the month for March are Gaetano Donizetti, Saverio Mercadante and Ottorino Respighi. We need articles on the following operas, all of which have been performed at the Wexford Festival:
 * Gaetano Donizetti: Il giovedi grasso and Don Gregorio
 * Saverio Mercadante: Elena da Feltre and Elisa e Claudio
 * Ottorino Respighi: La fiamma

- Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can work on the Donizetti operas on Sunday, since I still have Ashbrook sitting around. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey, if you finish them before March 1st, I'll substitute Ricci - La serva e l'ussero and/or Zandonai - Conchita. Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Work is progressing slowly, but I was able to cast two decent stubs for the Donizetti operas. I will expand them further as I have time this week. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm working on Elena da Feltre, the Mercadante. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the Marco Polo recording of it and hopefully can dig out the 1997 Wexford programme-book, so I'll see what I can add to your article. (Mercadante's Virginia is to be performed at Wexford this year, incidentally.) --GuillaumeTell 11:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival
Finally, I've migrated this from my subpage. I've removed all red links except those for a few operas and one composer. I'm planning to create articles for all of those, starting with Carlo Pedrotti, but if anyone else wants to help, feel free (and thanks, Voceditenore, for the sudden appearence of La cena delle beffe!). One note: in the final column, the singers are only those with WP entries, and indexing a column with more than one person in each box is a bit hazardous. Another note: in the conductors/directors/designers columns, there do seem to me to be quite a few who really ought to appear in Wikipedia. Some examples that struck me: conductors Maurizio Benini, György Fischer, Arnold Östman, Evelino Pidò; directors Jean-Claude Auvray, Anthony Besch, Robert Carsen, John Cox, Peter Ebert, John Fulljames, Stefan Janski, Keith Warner; designers:  Alison Chitty, Charles Edwards, John Stoddart, Joe Vaněk.

My idea of doing the same for Glyndebourne and Opera North now seems a bit problematic. Wexford rarely puts on more then three operas per year, but Glyndebourne does 6 (since the 1930s) and Opera North up to 9 (since 1978), which would make for very long lists. (Buxton is more problematic still, since I only have some of the programmes, though I do have a complete list of the operas). I'm wondering whether a series of articles, one for each season - rather like 61st Academy Awards or British Academy Television Awards 2005 and similar - might be feasible. Any thoughts, anyone? --GuillaumeTell 17:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC) + --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If Opera North take a proper summer break then eg Opera North repertoire 1998–1999 I think would be a good way to go. (Just poke around tennis tournaments to see how useful it is that each year of each tournament has its own page; eg 1987 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles) Differentiating between New Productions and revivals, and linking revivals back to their origins would be interesting, IMO  almost - instinct 00:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think breaking the lists down into separate seasons (or possibly decades) would be both feasible and really useful additions. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've ordered the Wexford recording (love Il giuramento and heard the Washington Concert Opera's performance last May) and was planning on adding a decent synopsis, as well as fleshing out other things. But if you have both it and the programme and have the time/inclination, go ahead. I'm planning on getting an article started for Elisa e Caludio, the other Wexford one. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Leitmotif
Can I draw people's attention to this dog's breakfast of an article. The topic is an important one for us (and for the Wagner project) but the article has references to supposed leitmotifs in films, computer games etc - these of course are not leitmotifs, just themes, (except possibly in a very few cases, which could be particularly cited). Of course if one just deletes this stuff there will be uproar. What is relevant to Opera and Wagner it seems to me is the classical music and, possibly, literature sections. Should we try to split the article up by creating, say, Leitmotif (classical music) and Leitmotif (popular culture)? -- User:Smerus


 * Yikes! Dog's breakfast is right (lunch and dinner too). The entire article is like an unreferenced school essay. I'd start by developing the classical music and literature sections and meticulously referencing them. The term is used for films, etc. as far as that goes, and there's no reason to necessarily split them off. See this and this for example. But those sections should be pared down to significant and referenced examples, and any "drive-by" unreferenced trivia should be deleted. It's much easier to do that (with less uproar), if the rest of the article is well referenced. Voceditenore (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start on tidying this and dealing with the classical music side, but really don't feel up to tackling the literature and popular culture aspects - would anyone like to have a go at the literature side, at least? I note we also need an article on reminiscence motif.....--Smerus (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes again (groan)
Looks like this debate has flared up again over at the Composers Project. FWIW I've just removed an infobox from Claude Debussy which had a section listing his "Associated acts" (was he a circus performer then?). --Folantin (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Could I just add that the discussions there could have a significant impact on the articles under the OP banner as well as our current guidelines. If you want to record your position or just want to record that you have no position... without wading through the acres of discussion... there's now a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have proposed that the RfC be closed. Please continue to voice your opinion at the straw poll, also, as that must be the barometer for consensus.  After that we can consider the full implications, deal accordingly and move on.  Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposal rejected by admin and discussion moved off Composers project talk page. New link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review request
I have two articles I've been working on which are part of WikiProject Opera: Ralph Lyford and Castle Agrazant (opera). Both articles are currently rated as Start class and I'd like to improve that rating. I'd appreciate an assessment of the article (changing the rating if it has progressed beyond start class) and also specific feedback I can have to improve the articles. Thanks. ejly (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I've left some comments at WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Lyford plus a link to some guidance on writing classical composers' biographies. If you're also looking to expand the Castle Agrazant beyond a stub you'll find suggested formats and contents at WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats. Castle Agrazant is a fairly obscure opera, but that shouldn't preclude reaching Good article or even Featured article class, although it may take some library research. Here are some examples
 * L'ange de Nisida (Featured article)
 * Twice Through the Heart (Good article)
 * Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Turnage
While searching out refs for Sarah Tynan I discovered to my surprise that there is no page for Greek (opera) (nor Greek (play)!) If any one has the wherewithal to create this, I can do the refs for the original Berkoff play, as I have the Faber-published script. (In case you're wondering ST was in the RNCM production of it ten yrs ago)  almost - instinct 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that RNCM production and have the programme somewhere. The Father was Julian Close, whom I saw last year as Pistol in WNO's Falstaff.  The Eddy was Daniel Broad, who's done a couple of things for Opera North but then disappeared.  A review of the RNCM production is here, complete with misprint ("gusty" instead of "gutsy"), I think.  My own review is here. I'll have a go at an article when I've finished with Tutti in maschera. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd created a very "bare-bones" article for the opera before I'd seen GT's response, but it could use a great deal of filling out, which I'll leave for others to do. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, GT! I've read some of these reviews online before! :-) You might like to know that the allocation of the various roles to just the four singers replicates pretty closely the division of forces in the original productions of the Berkoff play - it wasn't a decision based purely on the constraints of Turnage's commission  almost - instinct 12:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of historical opera characters
Greetings, operaphiles. Please see here for my invitation to improve List of historical opera characters in any way you can. Cheers. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   09:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Further BLPs for sourcing
Now that the "priority" articles have all been sourced, members can take a look at WikiProject Opera/Unreferenced BLPs. If you see any further names marked FN (fairly notable) which should be brought to the attention of editors for sourcing, please list them below. Once you've completed the sourcing and removed the Blpunsourced tag add by their name. Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes on sourcing:
 * Check the history of the article. Once the mass deletion was (temporarily) halted, several of the deletion brigade started reducing the lengthy articles to one-line stubs, claiming that all unsourced information was "contentious", e.g. Mary Costa.


 * Be wary of using stuff from BBC Music. This sub-site of the BBC posts reader-generated reviews and "biographies" which are mirrors of Wikipedia. Also watch bach-cantatas.com. Their bios can be useful as a short-term solution but some of them are lifted from Wikipedia. NME is one to be very wary of. Virtually all the bios in NME online version are lifted from Wikipedia or are reader-generated. They're not from the print edition.


 * You can often find encylopedia or dictionary entries more easily at Google books by searching with last name first in quotes, e.g. "Kuusisto, Ilkka". - Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * List
 * 1) Elena Gaja Note: has proved impossible to source in any meaninful way so far, at least from online material - Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Anna Leese
 * Update

I have now subscribed the OP to a bot which tags unreferenced BLPs and warns the article's creator. The bot also generates a daily updated page for us of all such articles which have been also been tagged with our project's banner. You'll find it at WikiProject Opera/New unreferenced BLPs. The original list at WikiProject Opera/Unreferenced BLPs was complied by Rettetast and is more likely to catch other articles, as it looks for key categories rather than relying on the talk page being bannered. I'll ask Rettetast to do another run for us sometime next week. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. In a couple of days I'm going to archive this discussion as there is a link to the OP unreferenced BLP clean-up page at the top of this talk page. Editors interested in working in this area can check it out periodically. Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks....
I just filed a new Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson. I sincerely hope it's not a false alarm, as a sockpuppet investigation is not a nice way to greet new users. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I marvel at your tirelessness!  almost - instinct 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whose? Mine or his? :-) - Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this. I wasn't sufficiently certain to block any of them myself, found no copyright violations in the articles I checked, and it does appear they are doing good work generally -- but Nrswanson, if you are reading this, and I presume you are -- for the love of heaven why don't you just promise not to commit any more copyright violations, and do this aboveboard?  You're just going to waste a lot of the time of our volunteers by trying to sneak around this way.  Antandrus  (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo Antandrus' sentiment. Although Nrswanson (in all his past guises) caused considerable problems, he also made many valuable contributions. Likewise, his new guises (if that is indeed what they are) are also doing really good work. It was only after much soul-searching that I brought the investigation. If he were to admit all alternative accounts, stick to only one user name and promise to respect copyright, is it possible he could be unblocked and make a "fresh start" in the future? I would support that. But no more fooling around with multiple identities, please..... Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since the cat is out of the bag I suppose I should own up. Yes these accounts are me and I have made a huge effort, beginning with singingdaisies, to be painstaking in not copywrighting/close paraphrasing anything. I did a great disservice to wikipedia and myself by not doing so earlier and if I could undo the past I would. I even wanted to go back through articles I created in the past and fix them but couldn't for obvious reasons. As for the current accounts... I really just wanted to start over without carrying any of the negative baggage of the past and perhaps make up in some small way for the damage I caused by adding some positive additions to the encyclopedia. I didn't think anyone would give me a shot at doing that if I just came forward and asked. So I just tried to spread out my edits among accounts hoping no one would catch on (which I knew eventually someone would since you all are pretty smart). I don't think there are words that can express how much I am sorry for the problems I caused this project in particular. My own personal mess bled into my wikipedia editing for a good while and it was not good for me or the encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A sadder and a wiser man (and a little less naive) than I used to be, I was just about to expose 4meter4 on account of the edit summary "add a bit" which was one of SingingDaisies' trademarks. But I welcome the above apology and support Antandrus's and Voceditenore's suggestions of an aboveboard fresh start, if one can be arranged. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @4meter4/Nrswanson I think a good way to start is to get over to Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson, make a full statement there, and if you have any other identities which haven't been listed there, please reveal them. It will go some way to your demonstrating good faith and might just get you a fresh start. Antandrus and I are sticking our necks out for you — it is essential that you be completely honest.Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may add one more suggestion, another sign of good faith, and a very real help to those of us who have been trying to address the issue, would be if 4meter4/Nrswanson were to fix, or at least specifically list, the remaining copyright problems he or she introduced that other editors haven't found or corrected yet--and extend that process to articles not associated with projects or under the watch of other projects that haven't been as alert to the problem. With concealing identity to avoid a block no longer being an issue, I can't see any good reason not to. Drhoehl (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly go along with the attempts to look for a peaceful solution. It would reduce the need for secret emails, sock puppet accusations against arbiters on other projects who don't understand copyright law etc. I think what would be helpful is if nrswanson were to identify, or at least close down, any additional socks that haven't yet been spotted and if he indicates any sources he remembers using of which we may be unaware. Sharing the burden of clean up would no dounbt be appreciated by the editors who sepnd most time on it. If he was really enthusiastic who could help out at the copyvio project, provided MRG and co don't mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must say I am surprised by the forgiving attitude of this group. I never expected to be given another chance. Thank you. Not to excuse my behavior, but I suffered a major mental breakdown and period of serious depression during which time I became obsessed with wikipedia and in particular the whole DYK thing. In many ways wikipedia seemed at the time more like a video game or dreamworld to escape into that was completelty sepperate from real life. It became a sort of haven to me (to start) in the midst of everything else but then turned into something very unhealthy. I literally would spend all day editing the encyclopedia and most of the copyrighting I did was done during a very dark time in my life... Fortunately several months of therapy, medication, and a new job have brought me to a better place. I don't intend to spend as much time on here in future if I am allowed to return. Its not good for me and frankly real life has become more engrossing. I would however like to help cleanup any copyright problems from the past.


 * To Drhoehl, I honestly spent so much time editing the encyclopedia (probably 8 hours or more a day for months) that I couldn't possibly remember what articles have issues and which don't. I was a highly inconsistant editor, often making good well crafted copywright free articles and at other times close paraphrasing etc. That's one thing that makes cleaning up the mess difficult, if every article was bad you could just undo/delete all my edits. Frankly, the only thing I can think to do is go through my edit history and check every article.


 * Voceditenore, I think your suggestion was the best. I have to sign off right now but the next chance I get I will make a statement at the sockpuppet investigation. Unless this account is blocked, I shall only be editing from 4meter4 from this point on.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you feel in a better place where you can limit the amount of time you spend on Wikipedia. Would you consider either committing to avoiding DYK in future or setting a limit on the number of articles you nominate? This might help manage the urge to cut corners.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I myself will no longer be participating in DYK. However, the article Muriel Dickson is currently at DYK because another editor (Ssilvers) nominated it. I personally will not be submitting any articles at DYK ever again.4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to archive this in a couple of days. However, for the sake of transparency, I have updated Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Singingdaisies and WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup with the results of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Italic article titles (2)
I noticed that the articles for, , and   now use the Template:Italic title. While I'm in favour of this title style, my recollection of the project's stance is based on a discussion in June 2009 where the consensus seemed to be against its use. Has it changed? Either way, shouldn't the project's preferred style be documented at WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not in favour of it as per the reasons in the June 2009 discussion you linked (along with most others in the project). But I'm not fussed about it. Note that the current Manual of Style position is the following:
 * It is technically possible to display formatting in titles using DISPLAYTITLE. A template, italic title, exists to display the title in italics. This should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for taxonomic genera and species. See Naming conventions (flora); Naming conventions (fauna).
 * The template itself states:
 * An RfC in June 2009 determined that there was consensus to italicize species and genera that use binomial nomenclature for page titles, as well as certain mathematical symbols. There was no consensus that book, movie, or other media titles should be italicized.
 * We could have something like this in the guidelines if others think it's useful:
 * Displaying the titles of articles on specific operas in italics is not recommended, per Template:Italic title/doc and Wikipedia:Naming conventions
 * Anyone else have any comments on this? Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes - I don't think italic titles are a good idea and would be happy for the above to go into the guidelines. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining what the implication of this is in how the page actually looks with or without......? I'm confused. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare (standard, without italics) with  (italicised article title) for Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Viva-Verdi, I'm assuming you're asking what is the implication of italicizing the title of the whole article (in addition to italicizing the title of the work when it is mentioned in the text of the article, which is normal practice.) Here are some examples of what it looks like:
 * Example for The Bartered Bride:
 * normal article title display
 * italicized article title display
 * Example for Pacini's Medea:
 * normal article title display
 * italicized article title display

The three main implications are:
 * 1) Using the Italic title template on an ad hoc basis will inevitably lead to great inconsistency of presentation across the 1700+ articles on individual operas.
 * 2) The style is contrary to that used for articles/entries in the standard opera encyclopedias, and for that matter, articles in any other type of 'paper' encyclopedia. The title of the article/entry is never in Italics (even for species and genera), although it is usually in bold since several entries can appear on a single page.
 * 3) It is contrary to the recommendations of Wikipedia's own Manual of style which states it "should be used only in special cases – currently its only common use is for taxonomic genera and species". (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions.)

(I also think italicized article titles are harder to read at a glance and look both messy and unprofessional. But that's just personal taste.)

The question is do any of the main implications matter and if so, is there consensus here to add to the project style guidelines a recommendation that they not be used? Voceditenore (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I italicised these titles on the basis of a suggestion made during the peer review of Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. It seemed like a good idea at the time....but, on reflection, I am inclined to agree with the arguments expressed above. I didn't think the thing through so, if nobody objects, I'll de-italicise them. And a specific guideline would be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of the above discussion, I've now updated the guidelines at WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats and WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)