Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A selection of August and September's new articles...

Serafino Gentili by Luigi Rados (1773 - 1840).jpg

Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Archives – Table of Contents
Archives – Alphabetical Index

Article creation and cleanup requests[edit]

Article requests

In a now archived discussion about List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, GuillaumeTell suggested that the following conductors/directors/designers really ought to appear in Wikipedia. I'm copying it here for editors who may be interested in creating these articles:

Per this discussion

Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (latest update 06:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Update: Dr. Blofeld has now created basic stubs for all of the above. I'll leave them up for the moment, as they need to be checked for bannering and possibly the addition of further references and/or external links with information for expanding the articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have bannered all of the articles, but have not addressed referencing, external links, or category issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have started this translation from the German wiki. Cricketgirl (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Cleanup requests
  • Per this discussion, the following transwikied articles from the Italian Wikipedia need considerable clean-up:
Stefano GobattiLuigi BolisLando BartoliniGaetano BardiniBasilio BasiliLamberto BergaminiAngelo BendinelliArmando BiniAdolfo Bassi
  • Per this discussion, José Cura needs a better and more factual article with better referencing.
    • Update: after I'd done some reorganising, User:ManukaFonsworth came in and did a major expansion of the article with lots of supporting refs. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Free subscriptions to databases[edit]

Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?[edit]

As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this here. But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the current article guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The latest discussion (January 2014) is archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from the German language Opera Project[edit]

Hello, just wanted to say Hi! from the German language Opera Project. We started in the beginning of 2011, a very recent effort compared to you. Likewise, our average articles on operas, composers etc. are quite behind the en:WP in terms of coverage and content. Which is a shame, considering the richness of opera life in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We have started by focussing on the widely read articles on popular operas, see this List, which gives page impressions in de:WP and en:WP and also global number of productions per year as a proxy for popularity. The rationale is this: given our low number of contributors, having 20 formerly poor articles on popular operas turned into solid works is worth more then 20 more articles on arcane subjects. How did you go about growing your project? PS: Maybe there could be some areas of cooperation, especially as regards access to and understanding of German language sources and literature. Let me know what you think. --Non mi tradir (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I have introduced this timely proposal to the discussion here. --Smerus 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles needing libretto links[edit]

Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on this page on Karadar, but it will require adding those new links to the articles, and I'm not sure how long it will be before Karadar closes that loop hole. Anyhow, here's the list of operas so far where I've removed dead links and there is currently no other alternative. It's also possible to recover some of the karadar links via the Wayback machine, as was done at L'éclair, although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Help! Does anyone know how to access Karadar these days? It appears to be a dead link - and I've tried to get into it via a couple of ways. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi. It appears to have disappeared in all its guises–.com, .org. and .it. I have a feeling they ran into copyright problems with some of their stuff. It's not showing up on Google searches at all and see this wacky note. I have found this other site which has links to zillions of libretti. Hopefully, you'll find the one(s) you're looking for. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Le domino noir (only score found), Sigurd (opera), Ciro in Babilonia, Sigismondo, Ricciardo e Zoraide, Eduardo e Cristina, L'equivoco stravagante, I Capuleti e i Montecchi, Médée (Charpentier), Emilia di Liverpool, Francesca di Foix, Il signor Bruschino

International Opera Awards (redlinks)[edit]

The International Opera Awards aim to reward the best of the opera world -- the top people, companies, productions, recordings, performances -- every individual and organisation at the top of their game internationally in the world of opera. One of the categories was philanthropist/sponsor. Of the remaining 19 categories, 15 were for established achievement over a period (all nominees of which I might reasonably expect to find within Wikipedia) and four which are rather more fast moving: best newcomer (conductor or director), new singer, rediscovered work and world premiere. The nominees for these last four should all be worthy of an article, but perhaps some few would be missing from Wikipedia(?)

I wikilinked the nominees and winners of the 2013 edition this morning, and found a lot more redlinks than I expected and some very surprising lacunae:

and of the faster moving:

NB: To preserve my sanity (and will to live), I am not watching ANY pages that touch on the infobox holy wars (including this one). For any feedback on the above, please go to the article talk page. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List edited to remove Dmitri Tcherniakov (found under Dmitry Chernyakov). Scarabocchio (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam links to[edit]

Be on the lookout for these. They've been added to many opera and opera-related articles. This ad-filled Italian site simply downloads material found on, Project Gutenberg, WikiSource, or Commons and passes it off as their own. Links often go to recordings which are claimed to be licensed under creative commons but many are copyright infringements, in the US at least. Others go to mirrors of pages on Project Gutenberg. Example which I removed from Rigoletto today. You can get a list of the WP articles currently linking to this site here. – Voceditenore (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Le magazine de l'opéra baroque[edit]

It appears that the prolific author of Le magazine de l'opéra baroque, and the websites and has decided on a name change. Previously given (and extensively linked from Wikipedia) as Jean-Claude Brenac, these websites and the linked books now give the author as Claude-Jean Nébrac. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Opera At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for guidance on Handel opera articles[edit]

I have been trying to improve the articles on Handel operas, many of which have been in a very inadequate state in my opinion, and will probably continue to do more and want to make sure I am not doing wrong things so I have a few questions.

  • I like the sections to go "lead, background, roles, synopsis, musical features, reception and performance history,recordings, external links" in that order. Is that OK?
  • "Performance history" for all of these many works basically goes "so many performances in the first run, Handel revived it (or not) in this year and in that, then nobody put it on for about two hundred years, nowadays it is likely to be performed just about anywhere." Handel operas typically have six singers, no chorus and rather small orchestras so can be put on at small scale festivals as well as famous opera houses, even the most obscure ones have been put on in all sorts of places now, who can keep up with that? and is it really very interesting? some of the articles have what seems to be rather random mention of a production that just seems to have caught the attention of whoever put it in the article, my inclination is to cut it out and just say "no one did it at all between 1732 and 1924, or whatever, now, like all Handel operas, it receives performances at opera houses and festivals" (citing a source). Is that OK?
  • Some of the articles have unsourced sections "Notable arias" which just look like personal favourites of whoever put that in the article to me. Is it OK to remove sections like that? All the arias in all of Handel's operas are notable if you ask me.
  • Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your work on these article although, as I've previously pointed out some of the formatting issues, which are illustrated below, to you before this, here is the Project's article layout format.Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats
For some reason, many editors of Handel articles seem to have gone their own way on this.
This all comes from the Project page. Hope it helps. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Amadeus Almanac[edit]

What has happened to the Amadeus Almanac? It looks as though a lot of our links to this database may be broken, e.g., "Louis+Gueymard" (Maybe I'm missing something?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! They have completely revamped their site to show only the almanac for the current day with no link to almanac itself. My initial reaction was "Che disastro totale!". The almanac was an incredibly useful resource. I have now discovered that it is still online but at a different url.
Go to
Having said that, the mass of broken links is still a disastro and I'm not sure how long the almanac will remain up even at the new .eu domain SMirC-sad.svg. Voceditenore (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this has been a very important resource for the project. Fortunately the search strings seem to be unchanged. Updating all of these links to the new root will be tedious, unless we can somehow use a bot. Update: I tried modifying the link at Louis Guéymard. Apparently all that needed to be change was "" to "" --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
We should switch to using templates for this sort of thing. If the domain changes, but the site structure remains the same, all of the links could be fixed by editing a single line in the template. I'll look into it. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I did a search on Google with "" There were "About 308 results". Not sure how accurate Google's search engine is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me what the Amadeus Almanac is and why it is listed as a source or reference for numerous Handel opera articles? I clicked on it and could not see any relevance to the article on a Handel opera I was revising so I took it out.Smeat75 (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Smeat. Its a searchable almanac and is useful for premiere dates and casts as well as records of other performances of a particular opera, composer, singer etc. It's particularly useful for rarely performed operas in Italy and France and often provides information about the conductor, set designer, libretto sources, etc. as well. You can search either by a specific date or for all dates containing the search term. (There's a bit more about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Online research#General resources.) It's part of the website of Amadeus, a long-running Italian print classical music magazine. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac. Because it can provide a quick basic reference, it was (and is) often used here for stub articles and has remained in many cases even when they have been greatly expanded. If it has no information beyond what any of the other references in the article provide, then feel free to remove it. I find that people often don't format the ref properly to indicate what it is, i.e. they put simply Amadeus Almanac. I use:
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Voceditenore and I had not seen that "general resources" list either, very useful.Smeat75 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: I don't think it is ever a good idea to delete a source that an editor has used to add information to an article. And this is a particularly useful source. The fact that the links now appear "irrelevant" is only because the url for the database has changed. These urls should be fixed, not deleted. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smeat and Robert. If it has been used as an inline citation and has been replaced by a better one, I see nothing wrong with removing it. But here's a prime example where it should not have been removed: Alessandro (opera). The Amadeus entry (amended url) has the premiere cast and was obviously used to source the Roles section, including the relatively minor roles, albeit without an inline citation. The role table currently has no inline citation and a source which could have provide it has now been removed. Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was the occasion I meant when I said I clicked on it and couldn't see what it had to do with Alessandro as it went to a page with "what happened on this day in music history" in Italian and a lot of ads so I took it out. I have put it back with your amended url although it is not necessary for the role table as The Handel Institute has a site with all the singers in Handel's works in his lifetime so far as is known which I have added as a citation in the role table. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I probably overstated it. Should have said "rarely a good idea". There have been occasions when I've moved it to external links and used a libretto for the citation that differed in some details. Still, librettos are often printed before the performance, and there may have been changes, which are documented elsewhere, like in a review. I do remember once tho that Amadeus listed a singer that had, per other sources, already died. Almost all sources probably have a few errors especially when they cover a lot of territory, like Casaglia's database. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Schubert - Die Verschworenen D.787[edit]

I am currently assembling the material to write an article on this opera. However I have stumbled across a question relating to the performance history that I do not have the material to resolve, yet. According to one source the score was printed in 1862 following the intial 1861 performances in Vienna (Concert) and Frankfurt(Staged). Apparently the first performance in the United States took place in March of 1863 at a theater in Hoboken, New Jersey (My source is a copy of Maurice J.E. Brown's, Schubert: A Critical Biography dating from 1958). Sadly he only mentions it in a footnote and I've not been able to trace this further. It would be most helpful if someone could find a reliable source as to who arranged the performance, which theater it took place in and whether it was a Concert performance or a Staged performance.

Also in the review linked to below it is claimed that the Opera was performed in private sometime between 1823 and 1861, but I've been able to locate no confirmation on this. If anyone can advise as to a source I would be greatful.

Franz Schubert: The Conspirators (Die Verschworenen)

Graham1973 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graham1973. Re the private performance see footnote 55 on p. 95 of The Unknown Schubert. If you can't access that page, let me know and I'll type out what it says. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham1973. Me again re the Hoboken performance...
From Dwight's Journal of Music (April 4, 1863) here (Note the text below is OCR'd from the page image, so use the page image to cross check)
The Concordia, a German singing society in Hoboken, have recently performed a little opera by Franz Schubert: "The Conspirators, or the Domestic Strife." It is the first operatic work of Schubert ever attempted in this country. The Musical Review says of it:
The opera was written in 1819, when Schubert was but 23 years old. No doubt the work itself gives unmistakable sign of the youth of the composer. Those riches of modulation, those traits of originality, with whicn his later works aoonnd, are not to be "found in the score. Everything is simple, very intelligible and often by no means peculiarly Schubertish. For instance, the song-writer Schubert, as ho is known to the present generation, will be scarcely recognized. With exception of the romance of the Countess in F minor and the first part of the Duo between Adolf and Helene in B flat, there can be hardly in the whole score traced anything, which might point to the manner and the turns of melody we find for instance in his songs. Yet the music is much more modern, than most of the music of this style was, composed forty and fifty years ago. One can tiike the comic operas of the German composers of that time, and one can easily see, how independent Schubert appears in spite of his twentythree years. Besides there aro scarcely any songs in the opera. The choruses, the ensembles, form the chief features of the work, and these in some instances are of an irresistible charm, as for instance the welcome chorus of the women, in C. The conipiration scene is also of good effect, especially the concluding Andantino in D. Of excellent and even dramatic effect are the two Ariettas by the Count nnd the Countess, the one in A, the other in C, although in the mniu features the same music. The finale, too, offers some excellent music, but here the want of really dramatic progression is felt most. The music does not reach its climax, on the contrary it loses its interest. It is true this is partially caused by the libretto (by J. F. Castelli) but on the whole this libretto is better than the majority of text-books of this class, especially of an older period of operatic art. With a few cuttings and alterations the little opera could be made very effective, especially on a large stage, and with the help of the orchestra, the treatment of which, to judge from the Piano-score, must be occasionally quite interesting. But even without these accessories and alterations the operetta has proved quite attractive, as all those can testify, who witnessed the performance in Hoboken. The scenery worked well, the costnmcs were very appropriate and pretty and everything was neat and acceptable. The choruses, some of which are by no means easy, were creditably snng, and the soloists, Miss Ludecus, Messrs. Urchs and Schoenfeldt, and two or three others, whose names we could not nscertain, gave general satisfaction. We need simply add that Mr. Timm was at the piano (one of Steinway's Grands) to satisfy our readers, that the accompaniment was in the right hands. The performance was preceded by the overture to "Euryanthe," rendered by Messrs. Timm and H. Branrkhunsen.
We understand that the opera will be repeated for the benefit of Mr. Serge, the conductor, to whose energy and zeal the bringing out of the work is chiefly due.
From Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (27 May 1863) here :
Ein deutscher Gesangverein in Hoboken (Amerika) hat vor Kurzem zweimal Schuberts Operette «Die Verschworenen« aufgeführt; vorher wurde die Euryanthe-Ouvertüre gespielt. Das Werk selbst wurde in 2 Akten gegeben und die Hauptdarstellerin sang als Einlage die Cdur-Arie der Gräfin aus »Figaro's Hochzeit« (!). (Google translation)
If you Google "Concordia Singing Society" Hoboken, there's probably more about them out there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that. It gives me a good run of opinion on the music as I now have sources from 1863, 1881, 1905, 1958 and later. Still feeling my way with this one. Graham1973 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical edition versus Critical edition (opera)[edit]

As one can see by clicking on Critical edition, we are now being sent through a convoluted series of links in order to find (and/or read about) the meaning of a critical edition for operas. Accordingly, I've remove the text from the Historical editions article, but have left a link in place to the new article, Critical edition (opera)

I shall try to find as many opera articles as possible which link to the simple Critical edition and change them to refer to the opera article. Any additions are appreciated. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, Viva-Verdi. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel the Critical edition (opera) article should be deleted. As it stands, it's a poor article because it doesn't explain the numerous issues and appears to be just about Italian opera. The notion of what we consider today to be a "critical edition" is strongly shaped by at least 150 years of history of such editions. The main article does provide this. Why must the wheel be reinvented for opera? The main article lacks a section on issues specific to music, so I would be in favor of creating a section in that article, perhaps for eventual forking. -- kosboot (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm off to deepest darkest Tuscany in a few hours, so can't really keep up the dialogue, but why on earth should it be deleted? A need for expansion to incorporate other issues and other repertoires is certainly not a reason a delete an article. Simply improve and expand it. Besides, the fork wasn't made from Critical edition which redirects to Textual criticism, it was made from Historical editions (music) to which Historical edition redirects. I would, however, recommend that a brief summary be left in the opera section of the Historical editions (music) article and use of the {{Main}} template. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than deleting the article, it can be expanded. There are critical editions not just of Italian opera "Also available at Alkor-Edition are scholarly-critical editions of major operas such as Beethoven’s Fidelio, Rossini’s Il barbiere di Siviglia, Bizet’s Carmen, Halévy’s La Juive, Dvorák’s Rusalka, Smetana’s The Bartered Bride, Gounod’s Faust, Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunow, Offenbach’s Les contes d’Hoffmann and La Belle Hélène and ballets by Tchaikovsky."[1]. I can't do it right now though, I am too obsessed with trying to improve the articles on Handel opera.Smeat75 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to just have a list of critical editions of opera, go ahead. (I also think "Historical editions" is a terrible article with the wrong title, and was probably created by someone with no idea of the field--that too should be deleted or renamed and entirely re-written.) Nearly all the significant issues in the Critical edition (opera) are covered by Textual criticism. If you know nothing about textual criticism, then yes, you'd think an article on critical editions of opera is necessary. But if you know anything about music history and repertoire beyond opera, you know that critical editions of opera are a much bigger issue than opera itself which belongs to critical editions of classical music. That in turn is only a part of the field of textual criticism. Music history shows that "historical editions of music" did not develop on their own but were an outgrowth of general textual criticism. Only after the field began did some people think to apply it to music. Then only after WW2 did people start to apply this opera. To create--and therefore isolate opera--from this context and field (without even having dealt with music) is not only provincial but intentional blindness to understanding how the field connects to cultural history. -- kosboot (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this new article needs a lot more work and considerable context. However, to have it buried inside an article which covers so much else (of relative degrees of relevance), makes little sense to me. So, have at it someone.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Carlo Bergonzi[edit]

His recent death has brought more attention to the article, including the elimination of vast swathes of personal opinion (thank goodness) but it still needs a lot of work. The referencing is dire and the ridiculous one sentence "Trivia" section needs to be incorporated into the the bio. Gramophone has an extensive feature on him this month, with free access. It's here for anyone who wants to work on the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done enough on this for today, but have removed the more egregious aspects plus added in several supporting refs to justify the assertions. And I'm happy to read about The Gramophone article which looks worthwhile at a quick glance, especially in the area of assessment of vocal quality. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Template for Amadeus Almanacco[edit]

Looking through a score of links to the Amadeus Almanacco, it seems to be accessed in just three ways from enWP:

  • a precise date (day, month and year)
  • a text string
  • both a precise date and a text string

Can anyone see a problem/ loss of functionality if a template for accessing the Almanacco supported just these three options, plus an optional label text for the link?

I'm thinking of something like

  • {{Almanacco | dmy=05-07-1870 | text=Mignon | label=Mignon's London premiere}}

to give

At least one of dmy or text must be given. If the label is not given, it will use the search text for the link label. If there's no label and no text, you will get the date as link label. Comments, suggestions? (The template documentation is rather opaque, so don't be too ambitious :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea which, had it been implemented earlier, would have made dealing with their recent URL change much easier. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Scarabocchio. I can see how this could be very useful. However, I always include the author/compiler, Gherardo Casaglia and the date it was published online, 2005. I know a lot of other editors use kind of a haphazard description of the reference. I'd want it to look like any other reference and without the "on", e.g.
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005}. "Mignon". Almanacco Amadeus (Italian). Retrieved 5 August 2014.
Having said that, the other info could simply be added with each footnote, in conjunction with the template for the actual entry. So I guess the only thing I'd request is removal of the "on". Best (from deepest darkest Tuscany), Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Michael, if I can master the writing of these, I will set up templates for other key resources. I note with horror that it was two months ago (6 June) that I first suggested taking the template path to fix the change of Almanacco addresses. (Sorry, Robert.Allen, for the delay)
Voceditenore, I was leaning away from the 2005 'publication date' as the site content runs up to March 2012, which made the 2005 date a little counter-intuitive, but I have no strong feelings (and of course it can be changed later easily). Scarabocchio (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's done!! The test data, and the resulting links are here. I'll finish the documentation, and if there are no show-stopping comments, I'll move it into template space as {{Almanacco}}. One change, more or less accidental, from what I suggest above: I've used a yyyymmdd date format rather than dd-mm-yyyy. I can change this if people prefer the other format. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's best ti use d-m-y. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I've updated everything to use the dd-mm-yyyy format. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Great work, although Wikipedia's MoS takes a dim view of your template's current date output (no ordinals, see MOS:DATEFORMAT). I suggest the general format, dd month yyyy, as returned by "{{#time:j F Y|1870-07-05}}" which gives "5 July 1870", or "{{#time:j F Y|now}}" which gives "15 September 2014". Such an approach will no doubt slim your template's code. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I consulted the MoS, but considered that this case fell under the exclusions mentioned in the first sentence: "These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles." In fact, I added the ordinals specifically to make the link look more like the title it effectively is, and less like a randomly linked item of data on the line. Compare:
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005). "5 July 1870". Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005). "5th July 1870". Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).
The second looks fractionally more like a title to me, but I'm not going to be anal about this, and am quite happy to go with the general preference of the project. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although in theory, using this template seems like a fine idea, I have some misgivings about how we are going to install it in the more than 500 articles that reference this database. Are we going to add it manually, or is someone going to devise a bot that will do it? If a bot, who will write the bot? A bot may be somewhat more difficult to create than the template itself. I've looked at quite a few of the articles with these links. It is my impression that although there are many, probably most, which may be relatively simple for a bot to deal with, there are some where it may not be so straight forward. On the other hand, adding it manually may be more than any one editor can easily do, but a team effort might work. I'm uncertain whether it will be worth the effort. Correcting the current links is relatively simple, but adding the template may be much more time-consuming with either approach (ie, manual vs. a bot). --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As at lunchtime today, there were 578 articles that linked to the old, broken, address. I edited around 55 of them in about 2 hours this afternoon, so I was taking about 2 minutes per article to change over to the template, test the link and save. That's a sustainable rate of working that means about 17 hours for repairing the remainder of those articles. I wasn't hugely fast because I was reading the odd synopsis, following the odd link etc, but significant time was also needed to improve the link parameters. Over half of the articles I edited were linking to a date alone (which would give a somewhat obscure list of random events that happened to fall on that specific day), rather than date plus opera name (which gives a single relevant entry). Eg: Compare the results of clicking the before and after links in this Don Giovanni edit.
Using a bot might be an attractive idea, but in many cases it just won't have the necessary information to link only to the relevant entries in the Almanacco, because it isn't available in the current link.
A second reason for converting to the template is that it isolates Wikipedia's links from the next change to the almanac. There are clearly changes happening at Amadeus .. who is to say where the almanac will be next month? Scarabocchio (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops! and the most important sentence of all: I don't mind doing 20 or so each day, so even if no-one else jumps in, all of the broken links will be repaired by the end of this month. The 400 articles already changed to would take another 20 days after that. It's not what I would have chosen for a summer holiday, but it's do-able! Scarabocchio (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, manually seems a reasonable way to proceed. It looks like the template is ready, so nothing to stop other editors from pitching in to help. The only question, I have now is how often does Wikipedia update the search indexes? The searches may start turning up articles that have already been changed. Annoying perhaps, but not a game-changer. I think we can probably deal with that. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried adding the template to Mignon, but it took me a bit longer. Perhaps with practice, I'll get better. Also, I noticed the data are now somewhat different from when I first accessed it. The database now correctly lists Alessandro Bettini in place of his dead brother, Geremia. (I pasted the results from when I first accessed them on the talk page, just to see whether there might be some changes, and yes there has been this one.) However, Almanacco still assigns Faure to the role of Giarno, rather than Lothario. Still, that is progress! --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Loading articles which have already been changed would be annoying. I've put the current list of ~470 articles containing at User:Scarabocchio/tbd. I've used the snippet returned by the search tool to group them into articles that search on date+text, text only, date only and the rest. If anyone wants to work on this, leave a note, or remove the lines from that page. I've put the articles that use accented characters right at the end -- I'll wrestle with those. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an optional parameter, such as "display=linkonly" or similar, that would cause the template to generate only the link portion of the current output. This would give editors the ability to format the citation in other ways, tailored to the specific context. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This shouldn't be difficult. It's already possible to control the text that appears in the link itself, using the label parameter (eg: here's an original link text that I preserved earlier: I assume that you want control over the whole line, to remove the prefix "Casaglia, Gherardo (2005)." and the postfix "Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).", leaving just the link text (over which you already have control). Have I understood correctly? Scarabocchio (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, for example, "5-July-1870". Then, if it's in a note rather than the list of sources, the punctuation, and whatever, can be formatted differently. It will give editors a lot more freedom to format it differently. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How about cases where the url is part of a Cite web template? For example, La serva padrona. Would a "display=urlonly" option work for this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Members may be interested in the discussion re the recent addition of a large trivia section at Talk:Pagliacci. From deepest darkest Tuscany... Voceditenore (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabella et al: which comes first[edit]

User talk:Meister und Margarita added the Hofmannsthal info box to each of the Strauss opera articles. I reversed the order so that the composer came first. He/she reverted to librettist on top.

Do we care one way or another, and shall we just allow Felice Romani to appear above Bellini on all articles about his operas or Piave to be up top on the Verdi articles? Is this the reason people go to an article: because of the librettist? or because of the composer? Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:Hofmannsthal operas:
This navigation box is entirely unnecessary. It has been placed at the top of the articles on operas for which HvH wrote the librettos. Those articles already have a navigation box, Template:Strauss operas, where all of HvH's librettos appear. The presence of two navigation boxes with 100% redundant content is confusing for any reader. I suggest to remove this template from all these articles.
--Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree 100%. There is no reason for the "Hofmannsthal operas" template to exist let alone to enjoy pride of place over the Strauss template. --Folantin (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the boxes entirely and posted a link to this discussion. Wait for fallout..... Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

<squeeze>There was a bit of an intemperate outburst at Template:Hofmannsthal operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I also agree 100%. Apart from the undue weight, and confusion (to the uninitiated, it looks like the opera had two composers!) the clutter seriously hampers image layout. If anyone thinks a navigation template to the librettist's other works is a benefit, then a the template should be at most a horizontal footer, which is the standard for navigation templates on WP. Frankly, I think the composer templates should also be footers. The current clunkers are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images. I'm getting rather fed up with seeing that same old, same old, Verdi box at the top of every single one of his operas, as if there were nothing unique to each of them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do recall some discussion on this issue of the "same old" picture, and would support removing the obvious duplication of info boxes, one on top, the other (far more detailed) below. Maybe we should begin a separate thread below? Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Just adding my support for Voceditenore's comments. Even if the user were about to embark on a complete Hofmannstal template, I think it should still go at the bottom. -- kosboot (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd favour them as footers in general. As far as I remember, the top-of-the-page templates were only intended to be used as stopgaps when no other images for the specific opera were available.--Folantin (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Composer info boxes on opera articles[edit]

Since there is a clear consensus that there is no need for a separate info box for librettists to appear at the top of the page and that there is now interest in re-thinking the issue of a single info box per composer which currently has the same picture appearing on every article, I propose that we use this section to move our discussion forward.

With voceditenore's comment from above—"Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images"—already finding support from three or four editors (including myself),our task will be to determine a replacement format, agree on standard content, and find relevant images. For a start, I'd be happy to work on the Verdi articles. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear majority, that the templates should be moved to the foot of the article. I agree 100%. And I did just that. I don't understand why it was undone. I don't agree that we should start with Verdi. The discussion started with Strauss and Hofmannsthal. These articles should be the ones to be renovated first.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Assuming consensus now exists on the creation of separate opera info boxes, it would appear to me that the design of the box needs to be tackled first. There appears to be no need to remove all the existing boxes until substitutes are created.
To me, it is immaterial as to who starts where: I'm going to research some Verdi images which might be appropriate for each opera. Others may start where they wish. Work can proceed in parallel. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We do not have to find an agreement on standard procedures - as we already have a standard {{Infobox opera}}, as RexxS pointed out on the discussion about the Hofmannsthal template. I've implemented this standard procedure - and it was undone by an other user who obviously disrespects the will of the majority. Here are my proposals

There is no need on discussing the pictures, as both of them are incorporated in the respective article for a very long time. I used the standard {{Infobox opera}}, did not delete the information of the Strauss template, just moved it to the bottom - and added a Hofmannsthal template (on the bottom of the article) as it is just fair to the creator of Electra, Rosenkavalier, Frau ohne Schatten, Ariadne and Arabella. Except Salome, all master pieces of Strauss were based on creations of Hofmannsthal. You should not delete his part of the success. Please tell me WHY? why why why my work was undone and why was I accused of vandalism? Why on earth?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to horizontal navigation boxes at the bottom of opera articles. We just have to consider how to construct them. For a start, there are certain technical matters to be observed, which M&M's creations {{Strauss operas 2}} and {{Hofmannsthal}} don't; these templates ought to be removed from all articles until the mistakes are rectified and this discussion has settled. At minimum, these technical matters include the correct use of the parameter |name= and the proper use of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Then there are useful things like {{italic title}} – which is not trivial to implement properly – see {{Composer navbox}} and others. Which image should be used? What should be done if there are already navboxes for the composer's other works? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Please think about the way you (mis)treat my work. I have brought a lot of new photographs to Wiki Commons (convincing the Salzburg Festival to donate some thirty pictures of first class performances). Sometimes I have the feeling you are on a mission against my ambition to improve the visual quality of Wikipedia. You try to destroy all my work. TO ALL OTHER PARTICIPANTS OF THIS DISCOURSE: Please compare the visual aspects of The Magic Flute's Second Part (version Michael Bednarek [4]) with my version in the English WP [5] respectively in the German WP [6]. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I favor keeping the composer infoboxes at the top of the articles. The links are much more conveniently located at the top, and the composer's picture is a visual aid in establishing the "brand" of the opera (acting much like a logo). Also, a vertical list is far easier to read than a horizontal one. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Robert's three points have merit and are well worth considering. However, if a consensus for horizontal navigation boxes and their style should emerge, a decision about the vacated space at the top right hand spot of opera articles may need to made. Infobox? Some work-related image? Nothing? There has been extensive discussion on this subject, most recently in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 113, 114, 115, (notably not in 116 & 117) and at Template talk:Infobox opera. I don't have the stomach to revisit those discussions; I think there is nothing that an infobox can uncontroversially show that can't be found in the first three sentences of a properly written article and therefore I can't see how the deployment of such boxes for more than 2000 operas is a profitable exercise, especially when Wikipedia's own mobile app shows the first paragraph before the infobox.
As for M&M's complaint about the treatment of The Magic Flute's Second Part: I join him in inviting everyone to compare the three versions and I encourage critical commentary at the relevant talk pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Some arguments. (1) If a reader is interested in a subject, he or she wants written and visual information about the subject. Therefore in all these cases, the subject in all of Wikipedia is shown on top of the page, not the creator — even if the creator gave his or her name to the product (as Porsche and Chanel), even if the creator is more famous then the product itself. Some examples:
Wikipedia Opera should be in line with the rest of our endeavor. (2) Operas usually have two, three or more creators (Wagner being an exception). For example, Elektra has three: Sophocles, Hofmannsthal, Strauss. Without the story and the characters created by Sophocles, without the wording by Hofmannsthal Strauss could not have created this masterpiece. How much he depended on great librettists can easily be detected by studying the fate of his early operas and those written in later years. Apart from Salome and the Hofmannsthal-operas none of his other theatrical works gained a great success. It is unfair in a scientific endeavor to continuously prefer one creator above the other, to give more weight to the composer. Compare the long lasting success of Mozarts Da Ponte-operas with the fate of Franz Schuberts theatrical works. (3) Also I love the beautiful painting of the great Giuseppe Verdi and I use it in the listing of Salzburg Opera productions in German WP, see: [7]. Of course we all are grateful to the composers who gave us these beautiful arias and choruses, overtures and finales, we love their music. But operas are like kids, once they are grown up, they develop their own life, their own history. The history of the reception of certain operas is really exciting and worth to be told. Each operas is a personality that stands on its own. Falstaff for example became a classical festival opera at the Salzburg Festival, while is not performed that often in German repertoire theatre. (4) We do not have to invent anything new, as there already exists the Template:Infobox opera. It is allowed to integrate composer pics in this template as long as there is no specific material available on this particular opera. Just let's not be dogmatic and/or stubborn. Let's make the world of opera in WP even more interesting and exciting, more colorful, with a broader variety of images and stories. Best, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any consensus or even discussion anywhere about moving the composer-image infobox template (which includes a helpful drop-down menu of their operas) from the top of each Wikipedia opera article. Could someone please show me where this discussion and opera-wide consensus took place? And help me understand why we are allowing a standardized, helpful, informative top infobox to be replaced by unhelpful random images at the mercy of edit-wars, poor decision-making, and endless disagreement? Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK: this may be visiting old ground, since I discovered the 2013 archived discussion and read some of it. Looking at the section immediately above—"Arabella et al: which comes first"—we can see various comments which appear to support a variety of approaches to info boxes. We may prefer that they agree here, but for now, we have:
Voceditenore said: "Frankly, I think the composer templates should also be footers. The current clunkers are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images."
Folantin said: "Yes, I'd favour them [i.e. composer info boxes] as footers in general. As far as I remember, the top-of-the-page templates were only intended to be used as stopgaps when no other images for the specific opera were available.
Additionally, I'd add the following:
Similarly, I support the use of varied images on opera info boxes where they relate to a specific opera. For example, I have just found a nice 19th Century painting depicting the sleepwalker for use on the La sonnambula article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally think this is a very, very, very bad idea. As I mentioned above, such random infoboxes are subject to unhelpful random images at the mercy of edit-wars, poor decision-making, and endless disagreement. Unlike with films (DVD cover or poster) and books (book cover), for operas there is no set image that we are likely to find and agree upon. I've already seen some really poor choices made. When is this going to end? I think this is just about the worst idea, supported currently by only four editors, to be proposed at WikiProject Opera. We had a great working system (which, like album infoboxes, also gave the reader instant information about the place of the opera in the composer's output), and now it is likely to end up an endless disagreeable and disagreement-filled mess. I propose no action be taken until there is a legitimate RfC or similar, with everyone in this Project (and also people who commonly edit on Opera articles but who may not have this page on their watchlist), opining one way or the other, and lasting the full length of time an RfC should. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The composer of the music is usually the most important fact to know about an opera, and this is undoubtedly why books like The New Penguin Guide' and Kobbé's Opera Book organize their articles on each individual opera chronologically under the name of the composer (not other creators such as the librettist, etc). I think it is pretty difficult to argue otherwise. And that is probably why the composer infoboxes have become so common in articles on operas. Perhaps opera is a bit unique in this regard, so I don't buy the argument that we need to "conform" to the rest of Wikipedia on this. In fact, when it comes to opera, the composer infobox has become the Wikipedia standard. You know the Wikipedia logo in the upper left of the page is not a very interesting image, but it performs an important function, letting the reader know where he is. I don't think anyone would suggest that it should be removed. I feel the composer infobox is performing a similar function for opera articles. It let's the reader know where he is. The human brain processes facial images very quickly and uses them to categorize lots of other related information. This ability evolved very early, long before writing came along. Facial images are processed much more quickly than written text. In general infoboxes command a lot of attention, drawing the reader's eye away from the lead. Infoboxes and other types of images, particularly those with written text, like title pages, etc, are often just a distraction, delaying the reader from reading the important information in the lead. I don't think the composer infoboxes do this nearly as much, because they have been kept quite simple and streamlined. And I'm sure readers quickly learn that the links to articles about other operas by the composer are there when needed, without having to scroll all the way to the bottom to find them. If these boxes are removed, I know that I for one will greatly miss them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree fully with Robert.Allen. Well put. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You'll note that {{Infobox opera}} puts the composer name at the top of the template, in primary position. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To address the valid technical concerns expressed by user:Michael Bednarek, above. I've created {{Richard Strauss}}, as model for discussion. Note that it's not complete and the works may need to be dated and reordered. It has all of his works, about which we have articles, not just operas (which could be rendered in a separate template in similar style, if desired). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The tempalte should now be near-complete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not in favor of any of the newly suggested templates as a replacement for the composer-image opera template now used at the top of all opera articles. Nor is there anywhere even remotely a consensus that the standard composer-image opera template now used at the top of all opera articles be removed or replaced. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the present arrangement as the system for operas will become a mess. Some operas will have the composer box with drop-down list in the top right, some will have a picture of some sort associated with the opera, and some will have an info box repeating the information in the first sentence or two (and which according to Michael Bednarek comes below the introductory sentence anyway). But if someone has a really nice graphic they can just put it in the article somewhere appropriate! The current system works well for all operas. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly happy enough to vote against 'branding' operas by putting the same mustachioed portrait at the start of every article. Sparafucil (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Of what I see, the situation is pretty clear: Voceditenore, Folantin, kosboot, VivaVerdi, M&M, Sparafucil, Gerda Arendt - with the technical support of Andy Mabbett - FOR the composer templates as footers - Richard.Allen, Softlavender and most probably Michael Bednarek against it. If my counting is right, its 7 vs 3. I want to thanks all participants and I will try my best to respect the arguments of each side. I agree with the argument of Softlavender that this new solution could lead to heavy disagreements (therefore I promise to behave respectfully and hope all others will do so too). The argument of Richard is valid: "Facial images are processed much more quickly than written text", but there will be also many facial images among the new pics. Due to the small space I believe most of the scene pics will be solos or duets. And there you will find facial expressions as well. Let's please cooperate in an elegant and respectful way, let's further the dialogue and support intellectually this wonderful art of opera.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I note that M&M has omitted earlier comments opposing this change from editors such as User:Kleinzach and User:Cg2p0B0u8m. I could also mention User:Smerus and User:Nikkimaria, although they made their comments some time ago and may have changed their views over time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If we count that way (but why should we?), please don't forget the voices of Montanabw and PumpkinSky (Talk:Rigoletto/Archive 1). Did it occur to you - if you really want to navigate away first thing when entering an article - that you could have the navbox below the infobox, or the navigation as part of the infobox (we tried that last year but I forgot on which talk page)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally find {{infobox opera}} most useful for works where there are relatively few or no other opera articles by that particular composer, or where there is no image available for the composer. Examples where I've added a minimal box to articles I've created or substantially expanded include: Harvey Milk, Giovanna Gray, Pauline and Don Bucefalo. I also use it where the pre-existing "set" all use the box, e.g. Pique Dame (Suppé). A very minimal box is used on some Featured Articles, including L'Arianna and L'incoronazione di Poppea (neither of which were brought to Featured status by an OP member). The idea of developing the box (and the outcome of the discussion related to it) was that it could be used as an alternative "head of article" option, not as a requirement for all opera articles. It was the outcome of trying to find a middle way out of constant and increasingly circular discussion which had dominated the talk page for months. I personally notified all OP members of that discussion on their talk pages (twice—at the outset and near the end). Some folks here may not have been members at the time. Some actively chose not to participate, and I can't say that I blame them given the acrimonious atmosphere that was developing. While there are cogent arguments both for and against the composer navbox at the head of articles, it is clear that there is no strong consensus here to continue "branding" articles in this way, in fact quite the opposite. However, I'd suggest that we play it by ear and not start wholesale conversions of major sets by major composers at this time, unless people are up for a massive barney. There are better ways to use our time and energy. Conversely, I hope that we can avoid a doctrinaire approach, learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Help -- user edit-warring, vandalising, and posting unhelpful templates[edit]

Meister und Margarita is causing all kinds of disruption on Opera articles. I would appreciate help in reverting, warning, and reporting him. Thanks! Just as one small example, the template he created is causing a redlink category to show up on every article he posts it on. Softlavender (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have told this editor so.Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure he's disposed to discussion or reason. Here are vandalism templates: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace; Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Who is talking of vandalism? You treated my work disrespectfully and unfairly. There is a consensus above that the composer templates be moved to the bottom of the page. Also one voices said that the (important) librettists could also be honored with a template at the bottom of the page. (No one disagreed.) I did just that what the majority agreed upon, and now find myself accused of vandalism. This is utterly unfair.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Softlavender: You should be aware that it's a Wikipedia policy that such edits are not vandalism, and that to refer to them as such is considered disruptive. Please use our dispute resolution procedures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
One might argue that M&M's edits are not vandalism, but they are certainly disruptive. Appropriate behaviour would be to contribute constructively here and await the outcome. Creating half-baked templates and implementing them in a number of articles, stubbornly reverting when their faults are pointed out, is not helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand your unfriendliness. I did not revert anything when a fault was pointed out or when criticism arose. When the first (large) Hofmannsthal template was not liked by you and others, I did not reinstall it. The reverts of Softlavender happen without any explanation. When I asked for the reason, I did not get an answer. What you are saying is simply not true. Please be fair.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: I'm not arguing (nor wiki-lawyering, as your mystery-meat link implies) that they are not vandalism. I'm stating that it is categorically Wikipedia policy to not describe them thus, and that doing so is itself harmful to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
What is a "mystery-meat link"? I don't know. Did Michael add one? If so, you did not link it, which seems to add meat to the mystery. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New opera pictures[edit]

Finally I succeeded to convince Innsbruck Festival of Old Music to donate some pics to WP. You can see them at WikiCommons under Domenico Scarlatti. I like some of them very much and we can think about how to use them. There will be additional pics from Salzburg Festival 2014 within a few days - from Trovatore, Don Giovanni, Fierrabras and Charlotte Salomon (world premiere). Please be nice to the pics. Thanks.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's excellent, well done, but you're going to have to get IFoOM and/ or Rupert Larl to confirm the licence to OTRS, soon, if they're not to be deleted. Note that they cannot simply "donate" the pictures "to Wikipedia", but must agree to an open licence, allowing anyone to reuse them, even commercially. If you haven't dealt with such a case before, and need help, let me know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Insert: The festival gave me a letter confirming their agreement. The festival is the owner of the pictures as they commissioned the photographer. But the letter is written in German. I will pass it on to OTRS. It would be of great help if I could get an English draft of a letter of agreement, so that I can pass this to the theaters. Thanks--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's OK; Commons-OTRS has volunteers who are fluent in many languages, including German; you can scan and send the letter you have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Links: the festival in question is Festwochen der Alten Musik in Innsbruck; the Commons category is c:Category:Domenico Scarlatti; Rupert Larl is a professional photographer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Viva-Verdi. Some pics from Il trovatore are now online, as promised. Have fun.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Image in the opera portal bar[edit]

For your information: Template talk:Portal#Image for Portal:Opera. Giovanni Eteronni (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

  • Note to members, The above discussion relates to a proposal to replace the image in the current template:
Portal icon opera portal
i.e. to replace Operalogo.svg with this: Milano - Il progetto del Piermarini per il teatro alla Scala - 1779.jpg
Other current discussions which may be of interest to project members are:
Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)