Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Assessment

Undiscussed/unagreed changes
I added the opera quality statistics table to the assessment page. Note that it only shows stub articles right now. I think that is because Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Opera articles by quality statistics has not been updated yet. The last update was March 15. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the new introduction etc. As you know, this has not been discussed by the Opera Project. The project has not - up to now - been involved in Wikipedia:Version 1.0. The project may be moving in the direction but trying to force things through via the back door is unacceptable. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Importance scheme draft
To be tweaked, discussed, and finalized. (The starting version was adapted from the Importance scheme used by WikiProject Women's History.) Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First tweak. The original phrase about biographies in the High Importance section ("For biographies, a person who had an international or pervasive impact on the art form or its history") isn't suitable here as it defines a ceiling. Verdi is one of the "1000 subjects that should be in every WP", so clearly Top within Opera. I've removed that phrase so now the guidelines are "Top=global+lasting" and "High=significant within a given geographic zone or time period" across all types of article (no special exception for bios). Scarabocchio (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Second tweak: possible suggestion for triage of works. Scarabocchio (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A few comments:
 * Top Importance: If Verdi qualifies (and I'm with Scarabocchio on this), then shouldn't everybody in List of major opera composers also qualify? The same could be said of every opera in the List of important operas.  If there is going to be picking and choosing from these lists (BTW, I would not be in favour of this), then it seems to me that the lists should be revisited so that the composers and/or operas who/which are deemed not of Top Importance would need to be removed - but on what criteria?
 * Singers and other small fry: Callas appears in the Mid Importance category, but singers aren't mentioned in the criteria. Nor are any other opera people or subjects who/which are listed in Category:Opera.  Obviously, the criteria shouldn't be enormously detailed and comprehensive, but where would we place, say Rudolf Bing, John Christie, Ivan Bilibin, Walter Felsenstein, Metastasio, Clemens Krauss et al?
 * That's enough for now... --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There seem to be 13 composers that appear in all 10 sources for List of major opera composers. I suggest that only those be given top ranking. The 25 appearing in 8 or 9 list can be high importance, the 30 in 6 or 7 lists can be mid and the rest low. (Unless someone has the historic tally to make it easy to include those on five lists in mid.) This would allow for a pyramidal structure.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And there are 93 operas which appear in all 9 sources for List of important operas. Top Importance for all of them?  If not, what? --GuillaumeTell 22:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are rather a lot of them. I don't think that Dutchman should be placed on a par with Tristan. Anyone able to think of a source that is a bit more selective as to what the great operas are?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all of us would recognise that there is quite a range in these lists. (Gustave Charpentier??) I wanted to create a strategic framework of subjects/articles in the subject area of opera, so we could prioritise work to bring them up to a good standard in a series of mini-projects/ tasks.  If we think we can find the effort, time and drive to tackle a very large list, then we could take the full lists of major opera composers and important operas.  If we think we should start with a smaller list of top level subjects in order to create a smaller, more achievable task, then these lists need divided up.  The suggestion by Peter cohen for a mechanical basis for dividing the list up sounds interesting .. perhaps we could use this approach to split the list of composers into .. two?  Let's try and find a manageable target size (max 100? articles across the entire subject area?) for the first stage, top importance subjects that we, as a group, can address and bring up to a good level. Scarabocchio (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC), edited Scarabocchio (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An off the top of my head list of 30 top priority operas would be: l'Orfeo, Julius Caesar, Xerxes, Orfee ed Eurydice, Figaro, Giovanni, Flute, Barber, Italian Girl, Lucia, Freischutz, Rigoletto, Traviata, Aida, Otello, Falstaff, Tristan, Mastersingers, the Ring (as one article), Parsifal, Onegin, Boris, Carmen, Boheme, Butterfly, Tosca, Turandot, Salome, Rosenkavalier, Wozzeck. Pity there's nothing Czech and that most fall within roughly a century.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this with interest - it seems we can probably get a close enough consensus on composers and operas to start with, based more or less on consensus with the sources for existing lists - and there is little point at this stage in adding my personal tweaks (altho' if Peter regrets the absence of Czech examples I would be quite happy to trade L'Italiana in against Rusalka or Jenufa or both)- what I don't see is how we develop criteria for categories where we don't have the lists to give us stuff for the pyramids - singers, opera conductors, opera managers/producers, writers on opera etc. Or are we tacitly agreeing to, (e.g.) find the top 100 operas and composers first and work through those and then see how the land lies? I'm happy to go with the flow and to put some work in on the basis of final decisions anyway.--Smerus (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)