Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90
Archives Table of Contents


August Composer of the Month

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles.

I'm going to be away for about 12 days from July 9th. I'd like to get this started. Suggestions please. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone suggested Milhaud and Honegger a month or two ago. Maybe them. --Folantin (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibilities from Folantin's suggestion from the Opera Corpus:
If anyone wants to revisit past CoMs for other ideas, the archives are here. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Tempus is fugiting yet again. Unless there are further/other suggestions for this in the next couple of days, I'll make a selection from the above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Update - now filled in. See boxes at the top of the page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian-opera-stub

Would this be acceptable to create? Our coverage of Hungarian operas at the moment is pretty limited but would be useful. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only about 12 Hungarian operas marked as stubs at the moment using {{opera-stub}} and Category:Opera stubs only has 114 articles in it in all. I'm not really sure of the value of adding yet another subdivision for such small number of articles, especially when the parent category is not overly large at all. But I suppose it won't do any harm.
Incidentally, I notice that a lot of the current Hungarian opera stubs are literally one-liners, entirely unreferenced apart from a banner requesting translation from the equivalent article of the Hungarian Wikipedia. Another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference. When creating articles like this, the reference section needs to state it has come from the translation of a foreign language WP article, specify the article and most importantly include the references used in that article. Here's an example: Christian_Richardt. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, well this are sources which can be used to expand. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it can source Bátori Mária but not the other recently created sub-stubs. I've now added the references from the Hungarian Wikipedia to the remaining five, e.g. Sarolta. If you plan on creating any more of these transwiki stubs in future and don't want to transfer the references yourself (which would be ideal), it would a big help to us if you could banner the talk page with {{WikiProject Opera}}, so they don't fall under our radar. Leave the class parameter blank. That will make them easier to find them via checking Category:Unassessed Opera articles. I normally check User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult daily. But I'm going to be away for all of August with extremely limited (and sloooow) internet access. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

August Opera of the Month

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles. Suggestions please. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the last month before the Purcell half-millenium. Maybe him again? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In light of current GAR for The Fairy-Queen (see below), I'd strongly suggest repeating a second Purcell collaboration for August. Again since tempus fugits, I'll add these to OoM box if there are no other suggestions forthcoming. One difference is that we should seriously think about starting a separate article for Purcell's semi-opera, i.e., The Indian Queen (opera). The current article (The Indian Queen (play) is almost entirely about the play (one sentence devoted to the semi-opera) and is bannered (rightly so) for original research and style issues. Apart from Grove (for those of you who have access), see [2]; [3]. I think it might be better to have a new properly writtten and formatted start class article rather than trying to monkey with the one on the play, which frankly is a mess.Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The trouble is, I'm not so sure it's possible to separate the play and the opera since Purcell only provided about an hour's worth of music for the revised The Indian Queen. On the other hand, the current article is such a mess there's probably no option but to start another page....I added the info about the opera and the recordings to the bottom of the current article so I could move them to the new one without infringing copyright. --Folantin (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Update - now filled in with the articles needing the most work. See boxes at the top of the page. I left off King Arthur. In May, Folantin did a brilliant job on it. Taking it from this to this. If anyone had the energy to go through the rigamarole, and it had a reviewer who knew the subject matter, it would make GA. Voceditenore (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't quite finished with King Arthur. I'm short of time at the moment but I'll see what I can do with Dioclesian and The Indian Queen (which really does need a separate article, the current one is such a mess). I don't really fancy going through a GA though. --Folantin (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Me neither at the moment. ;-) One place where the K A article might be improved would be the addition of notable modern performances.Voceditenore (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Review: The Fairy-Queen

An assessment was begun yesterday to review its GA status. I've updated it a bit, re-formatted the refs, and written an expanded lead (previously 1 sentence). I hope other members will also take a look and see if anything else needs to be done to ensure it remains a GA. One possible issue is that the inline cites to books lack page numbers. Also please participate in or at least keep and eye on the review page at Talk:The Fairy-Queen/GA1. The GA criteria are at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. The lack of page numbers for in-line citations, particularly for book references, is a problem; and is non-compliant with WP:Verify. Otherwise, its quite a good article.Pyrotec (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Update I managed to add at the least the page ranges for the print references. Article passed GAR. Voceditenore (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • For those of you who are wondering what this is all about, it's a project outreach from WikiProject Outline of knowledge who'd like to find out if the subject specialist WikiProjects are aware of Wikipedia's Outlines and/or use them. They maintain this sub-page of the Contents Portal. Their members also construct outlines for various topics on Wikipedia, e.g. Outline of sharks, or co-opt into the portal pre-existing navigation lists and banner them with {{WikiProject Outline of knowledge}}, e.g. the OP's List of opera topics. Some of these outlines are very old and were intitially aids to setting up Wikipedia itself, see this blast from the past A couple of years ago, there was a mass moving of pages to give them 'standard' names, at first "List of basic topics in X", then "Topical outline of X". This caused a considerable kerfuffle from the editors of the pre-existing lists. See for example, Talk:List of opera topics/Archive 1. Most (but not the OP's) have now been moved to just "Outline of X". Some question the usefulnessness/appropriateness of these outlines and of the Outline of Knowledge Project itself (look further up their talk page, especially under Some past discussions pertaining to the existence or location of outlines), finding them redundant compared to portals, indexes, the category pages or simply the main article for the subject. There may also have been issues in the past about people editing or creating Outlines for areas where they have little expertise or editing experience. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There might be some mileage in looking again at the List of opera topics to see if it can be reorganised into the sort of hierarchical structure which the Outlines are supposed to have.--GuillaumeTell 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

September Composer of the Month

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles. I'll be away almost all of August with a very poor internet connection, so will be unable to edit here much, if at all. I'm starting these sections so those of you who are here can start suggesting/discussing. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • can I tentatively suggest the 3 operas from the 'golden age' of Grand Opera that still lack articles, viz. Guido et Ginevre (Halevy), Le lac des fees (Auber) and L'enfant prodigue (Auber). we also lack a number of Auber's operas-comiques (Le premier jour de bonheur, L'ambassadrice, La part du diable. Apologies that I'm too lazy to add accents.......--Smerus (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

September Opera of the Month

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles. As per the CoM, suggestions please. Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always liked the Romantic period best - how about, say, Donizetti? Plenty of operas, all of which could likely do with a once-over. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 12:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Key_article_improvement, I see that Anna Bolena and Maria Stuarda have no synopsis, Roberto Devereux needs an expanded synopsis and all three could benefit from general expansion. Plus the C19 section of Italian opera is also in need of expansion. I'll look through some other well-known Donizetti operas for other possibilities tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) (still hoping to do some work on June and July's OotMs...)
Not my area, so I won't be taking part, but fine by me too. As GT suggests, it would be better to concentrate on a few operas. I'd also be very glad to see the 19th century section of Italian opera improved (I might be tempted to revise the 17th and 18th century sections I did a long time ago). --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through the Donizetti articles with a view to synopsis creation or improvement. Below are some important operas that need a synopsis or have only a very brief one; most of the articles could also usefully be expanded (e.g. with recordings sections, and some of the recordings sections need to be reformatted into standard table form). There may also be some scope for articles on some of the role creators - I'll have a trawl through red links and Grove. Update: now done - see redlinks below.

I think that the above offer enough opportunities for those interested. --GuillaumeTell 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please: "Operas by composer" templates

Might be a good idea for one or two of you who will be around in August to put Changes related to "Category:Operas by composer templates" on your watchlist. I just reverted some strange edits to one of them today, and since they effect a lot of articles...

Other alerts related to the OP are here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

New article

Hello, I just wanted to tell you guys that I've written a short article, rather a stub, on Italian opera director Giulio Chazalettes. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles to be checked for copyright violation

Note this is now superceded by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup

The following opera-related articles need to checked for instances of verbatim copy/paste or close paraphrasing from a copyright source, in most cases from Grove Music Online. If you find instances of this, please remove the copyvio material or re-write it and then strike through the article title once it has been repaired. There is more information about the problem on this page. For guidance on recognizing and dealing with close paraphrasing (also a copyright violation even when the source is given), see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If all of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, check the page history. If an older non-infringing version of the page exists, you should revert the page to that version, taking care not to lose the categories, {{DEFAULTSORT}}, navboxes, etc. which may have been added at the time of the infringement. When removing copyright material, make sure you leave an edit summary to that effect. Removal of large chunks, should also be noted on the article's talk page. Editors concerned about possible copyvio in any other opera articles should add them below, using: #{{la|article name}} - Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List

  1. Eliza (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  2. Messidor (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. Polly Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. Partenope (Zumaya) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. Pepita Jiménez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. Michael Arne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. Griselda (Giovanni Bononcini) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. Griselda (Vivaldi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  9. Susannah Maria Cibber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  10. Michael Christian Festing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  11. Adina (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Female voice ranges

In the article “Contralto” the first sentence states:

In music, a contralto is a type of classical female singing voice with a vocal range somewhere between a tenor and a mezzo-soprano.

However, the article “Mezzo-soprano” the first sentence reads:

A mezzo-soprano ...(meaning "medium" or "middle" "soprano" in Italian) is a type of classical female singing voice whose range lies between the soprano and the contralto singing voices,

And In the article “Tenor” the first sentence informs us:

The tenor is a type of male singing voice and is the highest male voice within the modal register.

Clearly, these statments cannot all be true.g

(In each case emphasis supplied to highlight the areas of concern)

98.249.102.185 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see your emphasis and am therfore unclear what the problem is. There is some recursion between the mezzo and contralto definitions, but hopefully that is dealt with by more information beign provided in the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:207.237.1.119

We have a new editor who, if you follow the links through 207.237.1.119 (talk · contribs · count), is very enthusiastic but isn't aware of Wikipedia's conventions on how to be encyclopedic. I've posted a message on his/her talk page rather than undo everything they've contributed. I felt that a proper attempt to engage rather than leaping in and reversing all their edits would be useful. However, most of it is going to end up being cast aside. I've also mentioned this project. Anyone else want to join in trying to engage them or be the bad cop to my good cop and do the undos?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether this is a shared IP address. Most of the contributions are operatic, but those involving a TV series, two murders and a Chemistry Nobel Prize winner may be by others. --GuillaumeTell 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
All this editor's contributions are strewn with thoroughly unencyclopedic remarks. This harms Wikipedia and the reputation of the Opera Project. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that these edits are problematic and that changes such as yesterday's addition re notable Gundula Janowitz recordings would need referencing or reversal, but I was suggesting that we attempted to engage this person rather than simply reverse everything they've done with dismissive captions. The individual concerned is obviously quite knowledgeable about opera and could be a useful contributor if together we can educate them about Wikipedia's expectations about original research, point of view etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible that the person in question won't have noticed your reasonable remarks on their talk page, Peter? Does the orange banner saying that you have new messages flash up for non-logged-in users who edit from an IP address? --GuillaumeTell 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If it is a shared IP. someone else may have logged in and got the message notice.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I doubt very much that it's a shared IP. The edits began this month, and are all of the same type. I've reversed the remaining inappropriate edits. Many of them of them highly inappropriate. I'll also make an attempt engage the person and we'll see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
PS Having said that, in the meantime, I'm also checking Special:Contributions/207.237.1.119 daily and will revert any further inappropriate edits. I completely agree with Michael Bednarek that the inappropriate ones (the majority) harm both Wikipedia and the reputation of the Opera Project. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Um ... a "new" contributor has materialised ... Special:Contributions/SingingZombie ... --GuillaumeTell 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sigh [4]. The last thing we need are more OP articles that are copyright violations. See below. Voceditenore (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruslan and Lyudmila

I just noticed a page move for Ruslan and Lyudmila to Ruslan and Ludmila in June 2009. The editor, AjaxSmack (talk · contribs), refers to Talk:Ruslan and Ludmila#Ludmila vs. Lyudmila, however my reading of that discussion is that there was no consensus to move. The text of the article and the template {{Glinka operas}} are now in conflict with the article's title. Should it be moved back? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Lyudmila, surely. The vowel is ю not у. "Lyudmila" is the spelling used on the Gergiev Kirov recording and by Viking. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Opera Grove and the Oxford Dictionary of Opera both also have Lyudmila. The Project's guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#The_New_Grove_Dictionary_of_Opera say "The leading reference work on opera in the English language is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera edited by Stanley Sadie and others. This should, in general, be followed for style." --GuillaumeTell 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just moved it back.--Folantin (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Singer article copyvio

Emma Nevada was originally a pretty much straight copy-paste of https://www.msu.edu/~graye/emma/biography.html It's been edited somewhat since, but remains a close paraphrase.

Anyone feel like rescuing the article? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 204 FCs served 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Emma Nevada/Temp. I rewrote it from scratch, although the copyvio wasn't as bad as some I've seen. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Will you two spam every single project with this?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Věra Soukupová

I just created a quick stub and it was quickly nominated for deletion. If anyone would care to comment please do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Věra Soukupová.Singingdaisies (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please... Burak Bilgili

Some of you might want to keep an eye on this 'dynamic duo' (who are undoubtedly the same person). So far he has restricted himself to editing Eglise Gutiérrez and Burak Bilgili, but he may branch out. I've just about exhausted the possibilities of explanations, warnings etc. here, here, and here.

A related editor, who may well be the same person as the first two, and who created the original Burak Bilgili article as a straight copy/paste from his website is:

- Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

I'd appreciate it if other OP members could give an opinion on the current dispute on Talk:Burak Bilgili. I'll be away from 12-17 September, if nothing else, could you keep an eye on my talk page. The 'dynamic duo' have now vandalized it at least 4 times, including the addition of this rather funny but overly large image (which I assume to be referring to me, although...), and bizarrely, this template. Sigh!!! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

He reverted again for (I think) the 6th time, and I've re-reverted to User:Singingdaisies's reversion. I think it's time to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --GuillaumeTell 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, at least that time he didn't deface the article. I'm off now for a few days. I'll leave it up to someone else to take it to ANI if they feel up to it. Otherwise Mr. Biglili can treat the WP article as his personal PR site. Sigh !Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I never got round to doing anything about the above (story of my life), so it looks as if he thinks he's won (he slapped an "Edit War" warning on my and Singingdaisies' talkpages, but that's all). I still feel that we ought to do something, and I'll have time tomorrow to raise it on WP:ANI, if there's a consensus here. Incidentally, User:206.53.153.101, whose other contributions are juvenile vandalism, removed his birth year, Singingdaisies put it back - and it's still there! Is it worth trying to add the Met debut details again? --GuillaumeTell 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Just off to see Così in Leeds)
Thanks for looking after my talk page, GuillaumeTell. I see that for your pains, you were also a lucky recipient of the demented frog. Things probably calmed down with Bbilgili and his alter ego 67.164.56.77, when said alter ego received a 24 hour block [5]. I'd leave ANI until/unless the dynamic duo start up again. The other IP (User:206.53.153.101) is from Toronto and clearly the earlier 'editor' of the article, 206.53.153.29, and probably a friend of BB. The ironic thing, is that I could have had the original article speedy deleted for blatant copyvio. But no, sucker that I am, I re-wrote it instead. Humph! Incidentally, this probably explains why they were also messing around with Eglise Gutiérrez. ;-) - Voceditenore (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The latter comes as no surprise, but what on earth was their problem with the accent? Something about Google hits or what? Incidentally, I saw EG at the ROH last Monday and, well, ... --GuillaumeTell 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't a clue what the accent problem was about either. Sheer cussed-ness? ;-). I was also at the ROH Linda di Chamounix and... er... Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_87&oldid=1190131229"