Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines

Wagner Dream
Help please - I've got into a hell of a mess trying to italicise the title of this article - how on earth does on do it?--Smerus (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox problems
Is there anyway to solve this long standing problem. As per before - we are all aware of the problems with the wording of the section on infoboxes. The problems that have come up again and again is the ownership of articles and the expectation that editors will see this advice page before editing, thus leading to edit conflicts and at worst the interpretation that this page is a real guideline. We edit then talk about situation - not the other way around. Telling our editors they must ask this project (by way of a talk page)  before they can edit a page is crazy - its absolutely nuts and completely against our "Be Bold" editing policy see Editing policy. I have linked to the actual policy at Manual of Style/Infoboxes that should be read over by the project with the section here being rewritten to conform with policy. No editor needs to ask on a talk page before editing any page including one that may be covered under this projects scope. The section should reflect the fact that then placement of infoboxes and the inclusion or exclusion is decided by the editors  at the article level - not a blanket rule from one of the projects that are affiliated with the subject. No problem telling editors what the project feels/ thinks about the boxes but to have advice that is the opposite of project wide policy is not productive. This (as we all know) has lead to many edit wars, long talks and the isolation of this project (even as far as not notifying the project when theses problems occur). Some of our guidelines go so far as to use this type of conflict as expamles of what not to do See :  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:Advice pages - is it not time to fix all this? Not asking to add any infoboexs or say theu must be added - but simply have the advice here reflect our policy and at the same time the projects feelings on the matter. Because the current uncompromising wording is not beneficial to our editors or the project as a whole - any thoughts? Moxy (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have further edited that section to reflect your concerns and to bring it more closely into line with the MoS guidelines on the issue. It is essentially what we do in practice now anyway. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)