Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

Did you know ... related to opera ...

• ... that tenor Albert Reiss sang in 1,070 performances at the Metropolitan Opera?

• ... that after performing with the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company for three decades, Anna Bethell became its Stage Director in 1947?

• ... that the Lope de Vega Theater (pictured) in Seville has twice been flooded by the Guadalquivir river?

Opera Portal DYK Archive (by topic) • Opera Project Talk DYK Archive (by date here)

Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals

Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals A simple script will automatically replace the text on the front page with the appropriate month when the time comes. Here are the next three months: [edit] Composer of the Month for September 2024 Click Here to set up September's Composer of the Month! [edit] Opera of the Month for September 2024 Click Here to set up September's Opera of the Month! Click here to show the October and November Opera and Composer of the Month preparation areas [edit] Composer of the Month for October 2024 Click Here to set up October's Composer of the Month! [edit] Opera of the Month for October 2024 Click Here to set up October's Opera of the Month! [edit] Composer of the Month for November 2024 Click Here to set up November's Composer of the Month! [edit] Opera of the Month for November 2024 Click Here to set up November's Opera of the Month!

Clean up project: Unsourced biographies of living persons
This is an ongoing project to reference any opera-related biographies of living persons which currently lack any reliable sources. WikiProject Opera/New unreferenced BLPs has a list of all such articles which is updated daily. All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to assist us. Tips on sourcing can be found here.

Clean up project: Copyright violations

Article alerts

Archives
Index

Article creation and cleanup requests

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:

• Conductors – Maurizio Benini, György Fischer, Arnold Östman, Evelino Pidò
• Directors – Jean-Claude Auvray, Anthony Besch, Robert Carsen, John Cox, Peter Ebert, John Fulljames, Stefan Janski, Keith Warner
• Designers – Charles Edwards, John Stoddart, Joe Vaněk.

Per this discussion

• Peter G. Davis (critic and opera scholar of The New York Times and New York magazine)

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

Cleanup requests

• Per this discussion, the following transwikied articles from the Italian Wikipedia need considerable clean-up:

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

• Per this discussion

Andreas Scholl (needs copyediting and better referencing, too many "cherry-picked" quotes) • Helen Donath (recording section needs clean-up and pruning)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?

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)

Jacques Offenbach: Sound file needed

The Jacques Offenbach article has recently been much improved and expanded and is heading towards being a featured article. You can add comments to the peer review here. One commentator noted that a sound file would be helpful in the article. Can anyone find or make a public domain sound file of, say, the barcarole and/or the can-can, the Gendarmes' duet or the doll song? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably still needed. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the German language Opera Project

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)

Voice Type of Ännchen

In the article of the opera ([[Der Freischütz])], her voice type is stated as mezzo-soprano, I think this might be incorrect. 1. In wikipedias article on fach(i.e more advanced voice-type) the role is stated as being for soprano (more specifically soubrette). 2. The aria-database states that the role is for soprano (soubrette). http://www.aria-database.com/search.php?sid=23e9cdb619c50384570059b76824e928&X=3&individualRole=507 3. A close friend of mine who sings the role at her opera-school assures me that the role is for soprano.

I will therefore change the voice-type in the article until someone can find a descent source for Ännchen being a mezzo-soprano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djingis Khan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A rather better source than any of those three, the score, agrees: "Sopran" almost-instinct 19:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. (I've sung part of this role - if I'd noticed, I'd have changed it straight away! Thanks for catching it.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I see that the change from soprano to mezzo was made by User:Robert.Allen on 21 June this year, and his edit summary says that the roles table was amended per the Freischütz article by Clive Brown in New Grove ("a decent source"). I checked the article and that is indeed what it says. I googled Johanna Eunicke, the first Ännchen, and it looks as if she was indeed a mezzo (e.g. she is listed as such in Undine (Hoffmann)). Maybe it's one of those either/or roles like Octavian? --GuillaumeTell 12:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me rather that she was one of those either/or singers. Three mezzo-sopranos appeared in Frankfurt in Orlando furioso (alongside a contralto, Sonia Prina, in the title role), but I learned here, that there was no mezzo-soprano in Vivaldi's time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, the WP article on mezzo-soprano doesn't go into any of this, as it's obsessed with the fach system. Grove Opera, however, has an excellent article (J. B. Steane was one of the contributors) which says the term first appeared around 1750, but Mozart, for example, never used it. The paragraph on nineteenth-century German opera points out that Eglantine in Euryanthe was written for a mezzo but premiered by a soprano; the soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient created Adriano in Rienzi and Venus in Tannhäuser, and so on. BTW, there are images of Johanna Eunicke (1800-1856) here, where she is described as "Sopranistin und Schauspielerin", and here. --GuillaumeTell 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The footnote cites the source New Grove Opera for the mezzo-soprano voice type (although this may not be totally clear since the ref tag was only added to the role column). As it is now the voice type does not agree with the cited source. (BTW, the score at IMSLP is a Dover facsimile of an 1895 edition, which I would venture is not likely to be a totally reliable source.) I'm changing the voice type back until an appropriate citation supporting the change to soprano is provided. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me understand: are we talking voice type as proposed by the composer? Then the oldest score might be the best source: soprano. Or are we talking what is actually performed? Looking at all recordings listed: soprano. Or do we believe in a source that is believed to be relevant? - Please don't forget that the main purpose of this entry was to improve the article of the whole opera, not a rather marginal question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think since now we have two sources cited for soprano, as long as we have the footnote, soprano is OK to put in the table. Gerda, you say the "oldest" score. Which score do you mean? None is currently cited by the article. Does anyone have access to Oxford Music Online? Do they still use Brown's 1992 article, or has it been revised? Is there a critical edition of the score? --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem! I've actually met Clive Brown and have his email address. I'll email him tomorrow and see what light he can throw on the subject. I might add that it's one of my favourite operas; Gerda - what, exactly, do you think needs improving in the article? Apart from the stilted synopsis (Leo Melitz, perhaps?), it doesn't seem any worse than most of our articles about operas. --GuillaumeTell 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant the tags for bar urls and missing citations, but those are gone (sorry I didn't check sooner), thank you for the improvements! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

Can people pease help to deal with a very difficult situation here. User:Major Torp has embarked on rewriting this article with major distortions (I set aside his grammar etc.). I don't know how to set about this but it would be very helpful to freeze the article for editing at my last edit (which reverts a slew of User:Major Torp's edits) until we can get this properly sorted. This is an important article consulted by many users, on which many worked to get it up to good article status, and I wish to prevent it being destroyed.--Smerus 15:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is now getting rather silly. After I posted a polite notice on User:Major Torp's page asking him to refrain from drastic changes without consultation, he has done the same to me. Is there an administrator around please who can advise?--Smerus 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried to have a look at this (against my general rule of not getting involved on WP in topics in which I'm actually qualified) but I'm afraid Major T's language has defeated me: even when he's vaguely grammatical I can't follow him :-( IMO a discussion which can't be understood is unlikely to produce good text for a WP article. Maybe its just me being impatient. almost-instinct 11:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Or che il dover – Tali e cotanti sono

I've just started a short term project to improve the quality of this article on one of Mozarts early concert arias. Online information seems to be short on the ground, so I'm going to need help tracking down good offline references. Help writing sections for the article will also be greatfully appreciated.Graham1973 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

RfD on WP:WPOMOS

The discussion of WP:WPOMOS redirect is happening on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011_November_12. Anyone interested is welcome to join it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut now changed to WP:WPOSG. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinhard Febel

Reinhard Febel was started as a university teacher, but he seems especially important as a composer of operas, help welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now on the Main page, with great improvements by Scarabocchio! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Opinions welcome

An editor has suggested a page move at Talk:List of opera companies in Asia, Australia, and Oceania. Please feel free to comment.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mark Herman and Ronnie Apter

As the banner says, "this article has multiple issues", autobiography being the core one. Anyone brave enough to enter this thicket? (I'm not!) almost-instinct 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that, as well as violating WP:AUTOBIO, they've been hopping around opera articles (Maria Stuarda, La bohème, etc.), adding their singable English translations under the heading Editions. Looks like "Spam, spam, spam, wonderful spam..." to me. AfD, anyone? --GuillaumeTell 17:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they're notable, the article is unsalvageable advertisement, but we don't even have to bother with AfD because it's also a copyvio of several pages. Speedied. Has the spam on other pages been cleaned up already? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not when I was looking briefly earlier on. Individual pages might have been undone. Is there a way of doing it non-painstakingly? almost-instinct 22:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I used rollback and most and manually removed the rest. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Its astonishing how quickly a conversation about WP tools can go over my head ;-) Thank you very much for sorting that out. If I hadn't been in a hurry earlier on I would have mentioned that account at WP:SPAM. Still worth doing that, do you think? almost-instinct 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was previously in a hurry to do various things, but came back here to get rid of the spam and now find that I don't need to. As for Speedy Deletion, I sort of assumed that articles could only be nominated for SD when fairly new (this one is nearly two months old), but that clearly isn't the case. Thanks, Roscelese! --GuillaumeTell 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Result! [[1]] --GuillaumeTell 00:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since that's now a red link and thus the history gone, this might be useful:

• Operatranslation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

almost-instinct 10:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Falsetto

Could someone look at revising this article? I disagree with some of the information in the article, and I've added some recent comments to that effect on the talk page. First, the article suggests there is only modal voice and falsetto, without consideration of head voice, chest voice, blends or transition technique. Second, the section on "female falsetto" sounds like crackpot theory written by some guy in a cloister who never talked to a woman about vocals. Third, the section on rock and pop use of "falsetto" is far too limited. Many popular singers make use of head voice techniques. Lastly, the use of falsetto in speech varies according to culture. The last section has a strong cultural bias in stating that it is a speech pathology. I'm sure I could go on, but I'm not expert enough on the literature to revise it myself. Pkeets (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Fixed it myself. Pkeets (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Herring

Could a member of this project please have a look at the Performance History section of this article: it seems to be a little "out of sync". Regards. 94.226.159.151 (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In this context, I am a bit uneasy about the performance history - is it useful or meaningful to give, as here, lists of productions in universities etc.? Shouldn't this section be reserved for productions by major opera houses and producers, or at least those that have generated significant critical or other comment? Are there guidelines for performance history sections? Otherwise, in time, these sections will overwhelm the rest of the article for this and many other operas. --Smerus 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think perfomance histories are mostly used for the first few performances to demonstrate how the work spread; mentioning premieres in various countries is quite common. After that, unless a production is of extraordinary significance, I see no need to list any further performances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO when a work that once a piece is established in the repertoire, only truly exceptional performances should be mentioned. And even then only with caution. (Exceptional might mean a production that alters the general conception of the work, or maybe one in which a gold-plated cast were at the peak of their powers) almost-instinct 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Theater stubs

Not visible in Music, but Germany: Dr. Blofeld created many stubs which include opera houses (or theaters, where opera is performed among others). There is room for expansion. I so far expanded Schlosstheater Schwetzingen and Ruhrfestspiele, please check, there are many terms I don't know in English, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. That creator's version of Pavillon 21 MINI Opera Space may well have been a record for the "Stubbiest Stub on Wikipedia". ;-) I've now sourced it and expanded it as much as possible, but I fear it will always remain somewhat stubby. I'll have a look at the other two you mentioned in a couple of days, if someone doesn't beat me to it. I redirected Hamburger Stadttheater to Hamburg State Opera (just as it does on the German WP) and another editor made some sense out of Oper am Gänsemarkt. The two remaining relevant sub-stubs (completely unreferenced), are Opernloft and Schilleroper. Have I missed any? Voceditenore (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Dell'arte Opera Ensemble

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell'arte Opera Ensemble. – Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics (again)

I would like to know the opinion of the members of this project on this edit, and several like them made by user Robergreer. If WP aspires to being an encylopedia, I believe this sort of simplification is unacceptable. In my opinion, this "foreignchar" template should be deleted alltogether. Regards. 94.226.156.237 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit is ridiculous. My keyboard doesn't 'have' this character, but, like all others, has ways of accessing it. And who is it exactly that gives gracious permission that 'Where it is unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Les fetes de Polymnie'. ? What is the meaning here of not 'desired'? The whole drift of this edit is 'unencyclopaedic' and all such edits should be reverted - so I agree with 94.226.156.237 (talk) - but......are there formal guidelines about this template? - I can't find any.--Smerus 20:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both these editors. I would support a nomination to delete the template. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Foreignchar does have the occasional legitimate use, such as with umlauts ("Goetterdaemmerung" etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

How would the template {{Foreign character}} be a more legitimate use on Götterdämmerung than on Les fêtes de Polymnie? The template was probably useful before Wikipedia's search facility was greatly improved. One can type pretty weird stuff into the search box nowadays, and still find the intended article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is its purpose as a search aid? I thought it was informational, not navigational. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point; either way, I have no idea what the template's purpose is, and judging by Template talk:Foreign character, many others don't either, although it has survived 2 deletion proposals. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The last attempt to delete the template was 3 years ago -shall we try again? --Smerus 06:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll vote to delete if you do. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will do so, too. The template is not helpful, rather confusing, in the prominent position at the very beginning of an article, when the reader wants to get to the topic, not this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. The template was created in 2005 when (I'm fairly certain) a number of foreign characters couldn't be used in titles. I've also noticed recently that there's no need to type characters with accents (say, ê) into the search box as exactly the same results appear if you omit the circumflex. --GuillaumeTell 11:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. I've always found it silly. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I will gird my loins.....--Smerus 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

See here for deletion proposal.--Smerus 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-assesment

• Premininary note: In September 2011, the project was given the opportunity to do a self-assessment exercise facilitated by Maggie Dennis, Community Liason for the Wikimedia Foundation. Three members (Smerus, Voceditenore, and GuillaumeTell) participated. The original exercise can be read at WikiProject Opera/Self-assessment. Discussions leading up to the launch of the exercise can be found in Archive 104. I've taken the liberty of formatting this renewed discussion to keep the separate questions under a single overall heading. Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-assessment: Where could this project improve?

I think I said that I would contribute to this discussion if at least four other people took part. Well, that never happened, but here's my penny's worth anyway:

Perhaps the biggest drawback of WP is the inclusion of poor, irrelevant and/or utterly arcane/ minor/ obscure articles. To gain respect, the dictionary-definition-style stubs and the pointless fluff should either be removed, or made filterable. There IS good stuff in here, but the perception of the site generally does seem to come from the poorest articles. If someone finds an incomplete, erratic or unbalanced article (NBBB all completely licit under WP's rules and guidelines), then the reputation of the whole undertaking is tainted. I have no idea what a filtered WP that showed articles of GA standard or above might look like, but it might just be WP's salvation to support something like this.

One possible staging post to this is the number-limited list. Wikimedia's List of articles every Wikipedia should have is restricted to 1000 articles (so we have a "one in, one out", prioritised list). Wikipedia France's Top importance France articles is restricted to 100 "core topics about France. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main France article, vital for the understanding of France or extremely notable to people outside of France. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members". A key project goal is how well it covers these articles "vital for the understanding": ie to "build all Top Importance France Articles to Good Article status, at a minimum (FA is preferred). Current progress: 7 out of 93 articles meet this criteria."

At the moment, articles falling within WikiProject Opera are rather too egalitarian. Every article, every subject is treated equally. The rather overly-fetishised "opera corpus" covers the first-rate to the sixth-rate. What's missing is balance, perspective, prioritisation .. in a word "editing".

Which articles are the most read (ie which ones are having the biggest contribution to the visitors' impressions of the subject area)? Which articles are the most significant for the subject? A list of the top 50 (or 100) articles ("vital for understanding") about opera would be a good first (small) step.

Scarabocchio (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with being too directive is that this is a volunteer project and not everybody likes every opera equally. Let people write about what they enjoy. Further your preference for depth over breadth does not necessarilly match readers needs or editors' resources best.

Large opera companies will each produce a number of operas into double figures a year. There are smaller houses and festivals that specialise is less well-known work. Public service broadcasters, such as BBC Radio 3 may broadcast about 100 operas a year. There is therefore a need among potential readers to find out about relatively obscure works. People who want to hear about Tosca will have plenty of places to look, people who want to find out about Twice Through the Heart don't. However, the latter receives a run somewhere most years (most recently this month at Sadlers Wells). So there is a steady trickle of people who may want to know something about this work before making a decision on whether to go to a performance.

As I have been to a number of performances of more obscure works, I have resources such as programme books that very few other people have. By using these, I am able to construct articles about these works which are unmatched elsewhere on the web. I don't necessarilly enjoy these works as much as The Ring or Boris Godunov or La Boheme but it is a lot easier to produce a good introduction to a rarity one knows something about than it is to match the best that is already available out there on the workhorses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What you say is perfectly valid ... from the point of view of an individual editor, but not for the project. Surely the project should be more than the sum of its individual parts, each doing their own thing? What is the point of a WikiProject unless it directs and co-ordinates? Scarabocchio (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Scarabocchio, you may find this article interesting, Improving Wikipedia's important articles: A strategic opportunity for the En-Wikipedia community, Featured Article regulars, and WMF sponsors. The author (User:TCO) argues in a similar vein. However, I tend to agree with Peter Cohen's views. I write almost exclusively on lesser known works, composers, and singers. Information on these subjects is very difficult (well-nigh impossible) for the ordinary person to access for free via the internet, and often much of the key source material is not in English. To me, that's where the project comes into its own. Many of the measures you propose are completely out of the project's control—they're meta-Wikipedia issues. Note that even a very modest proposal to implement a pending changes tool for biographies of living persons was rejected by WP after the trial period. We have a list of the most viewed opera-related articles here and compiling a list of the "vital articles" (irrespective of their page views) is worthwhile. We do have a list for Key article improvement made on 2008, but I think it's a bit too diffuse. There's also List of opera topics which provides an outline of the subject. Both could be improved as a starting point, by editors who would like to take this on.

Specifically addressing your question : "What is the point of a WikiProject unless it directs and co-ordinates?". Well, I would say that a key point of a project (the key point for me) is providing editor support, a space for editors in the area (whether they are members or not) to discuss article issues they have encountered and to find fellow editors who have access to reference books, have expert knowledge in a particular area, or who can help translate sources from other languages. Another key point is to provide guides to editing, formatting and researching articles in the project's scope and to keep an eye on those articles. It certainly isn't a place to direct the wider WP community. As for directing its own members, well even there... a project can't direct its volunteers to work in areas where they don't care to. It can suggest areas for collaboration and highlight the suggestion. If members want to collaborate, they will. WikiProject Military history has quite active internal coordination and collaborations, but it is a huge project (over 600 members, with multiple task forces) and in many respects a unique one. Their self-assessment makes interesting reading. Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I have no desire to be directed nor co-ordinated, but I find the Opera WP a very useful and supportive thing. Seeing other opinions etc help me in my own thinking. While the pace may have slackened, all around I see solid work being done conscientiously almost-instinct 10:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Voce, thanks for your (as always) considered response. I can see that there is a value in having a talking shop where editors can discuss items of common interest, and be alerted to developments or discussions elsewhere, but ... Wikipedia is a very significant information resource for readers. WP has, for better or for worse, a large effect on how many people learn about/ think about/ see a given subject. I am not suggesting that we should blindly and evangelically proselytise for the art-form, but there is (in my mind at least) a responsibility to support the *reader*, particularly the reader who has an early interest in the art-form. Articles on the weird and wonderful corners of the operatic world (and I've written some myself) are great, but ... I want to help support and encourage the art-form, to help people find it and become captivated by it. WP can have its place in this, and WPO could be the guide. At the moment, I don't believe it is. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The two links to Key article improvement and the List of opera topics were as expected (exactly how many operas would have to be included in a list of key articles before Philip Glass's Ahknaten was included? etc), but wow, that first link is really relevant (if somewhat erratically (angrily?)) written! ‘Wikipedia should be assessed versus what its customers want, not just what it happens to produce.’ 'Simultaneous with delivering poor results on the most important products, "[most] high-quality articles found in Wikipedia are articles which address minutiae for specialized audiences"

Executive summary of the reader experience (weighted by page views; taken from the "Pulling it all together" section): 69% of readers are seeing a low quality article. Only 3% a high quality article. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Peter Cohen, Voceditenore, almost-instinct. I am not for an instant saying that you should not write the articles you are interested in. When I say that the project could/ should "direct and co-ordinate", I am not in any way thinking of any restrictions on what editors wish to tackle, but guidance. Most of us could write on a variety of opera topics. If we could discuss the overall subject area, choose our own set of "Vital Articles", be aware of the quality of those articles, think about the experience of the *reader*, then at least some of us would work on the high-profile, high-readership articles that contribute to the perception of WP by the readers and by the wider world. Unless this is good, the readers (and the potential future contributors) will not come, and WP will be doomed to write-only articles, drive-by copy-editing and the heat-death of punctuation correction. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that there is a disconnect between what is right and typical for Wikipedia, and what opera fans want. Wikipedia (i.e. experienced Wikipedians) want good articles, and no stubs. I think the average opera fan would prefer to see stubs rather than no entry at all. If Wikipedia is going to give something that opera fans wants, it's better to have some information than no information (not sure I'd feel that way about other subjects). Under Kleinzach's direction, this group really forged ahead. Maybe it's the maturation of Wikipedia that causes fewer people to be involved nowadays (which I see across the board). On the one hand, you want more people to participate; on the other hand, the continuously evolving guidelines/rules for participation have increasingly raised the barrier for entry. -- kosboot (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to add another point: having stubs on lesser known areas often attracts new expert editors who are drawn in by adding what they know. It's relatively easy for a newcomer to edit an existing article, whereas it's pretty hard to learn how to start a page from scratch. --Folantin (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and in general I strongly support having well-writtten stubs with at least one good reference. Frankly, a lot of the articles in Grove are basically stubs (in the Wikipedia sense). Voceditenore (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! You're absolutely right! I never realized that until you mentioned it. (And in fact, some article in New Grove are simply purchased from MGG - making them over 50 years old without revision.) -- kosboot (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(MGG started work on making their updated databases available through a new multilingual website earlier this year ... expect a new major player on the opera information scene sometime in 2012). Scarabocchio (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I still like the concept of number-limited 'Vital Articles' -- a subset of opera articles vital for understanding the subject. I've put a request in to add the 'importance' to the table of most popular pages, just to see how closely the page views match the noted importance of the articles to the art-form. It might be interesting, and useful, to make this a prominent part of the project welcome page (IF the importance has been set correctly!!!). Let's see. Scarabocchio (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, those tables are done via a bot and the "Importance" of an article is only available if the project's banner has a parameter for an importance rating and the project itself has actually assessed the article for that parameter. The parameter could be added to the OP banner if members are in favour of that. But then there needs to be at least one editor (preferably more) who would be willing to put in the time systematically assessing the nearly 8000 articles currently bannered, perhaps starting with the 500 articles currently on the popular pages list. There also needs to be a discussion of the project's criteria, and a guidance table, e.g. [2], for each rating. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Importance relates to the subject, not the article, so no assessment of the texts is needed. It could be fun drawing up a list of 50 (or 100) "core topics for the understanding or study of opera. Of global significance. No encyclopedia would be complete without these article." Scarabocchio (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to an assessment of the texts, but to an assessment of the subject's importance. And yes, it does require an OP member to assess/rate the importance of the subject for each individual article and note it in the banner on its talk page. The table is bot-generated. It "reads" the importance rating from the project banner on the article talk page to fill in the column. The bot can only add importance ratings to the popular pages table if an "Importance" parameter is added to Template:WikiProject Opera, and it has been filled in for those pages. There's no way to edit that table manually. Once/if the Importance parameter is added to the template, the Importance column on the Popular pages table will appear, but any article which has not yet been explicitly rated on its talk page will show ? ? ? in that column. Voceditenore (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

minor query here about the bot-generated table: in assessing the Opera project as a whole, shouldn't this list include pages in the sub projects Wagner and G&S ? Richard Wagner gets about 3000 hits/day.--Smerus (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bannering

incidentally I just realised that Tchaikovsky wasn't listed under the Opera project (now remedied): moreover (see a few miles below under 'expand') his article really needs something specifically on his operas ( I will try to get round to this). We might need to do a sortie to ensure that major figures like this are indeed all tagged by the Project.--Smerus (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You think you have found a gaping structural hole? How about Mozart is not listed under the opera project. Does anyone not think that some meta-work needs done, above the level of individual articles? Scarabocchio (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The composer bios have always been under the aegis of WikiProject:Composers. --Folantin (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The WPO popular pages list Vivaldi, Schubert, Handel, Shostakovich, Mendelssohn, ... why not Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven? The most viewed page in Opera was the Bolshoi (due no doubt to the re-opening) at 87k views. Mozart has 255k, Tchaikovsky 91k and Beethoven 268k. Perhaps the reason that the operas are covered so lightly in the composer biographies eg Britten and Tchaikovsky, is that the opera project has not been involved? Perhaps this should change?

Which are the core areas of top-importance for opera? Are they well/ adequately/ poorly covered? Scarabocchio (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The "gaping structural hole" was an intentional one. Frankly, I never agreed with it, but it was already in place when I joined the project. The reason they don't carry the OP banner stems from a sentiment here against "double-bannering". The idea was that WikiProject Composers should banner/look after composers unless they were known almost exclusively for their operas. e.g. Verdi and Puccini. (Though, over the years, some composers have been bannered anyway.) Similarly, those under the Gilbert & Sullivan and Wagner projects weren't "double-bannered". The only way pages related to opera can appear on the Opera Project popular pages list is if they actually carry the OP banner. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not bannering per se (though having an article tagged as of interest to the opera project would doubtless be valuable). The problem is one of content. How many of Tchaikovsky's 10 operas would you expect to see mentioned or even named in the rather sizeable biography under the aegis of the Composers's project? The answer is three: a single mention of Cherevichki, a single mention(!) of Queen of Spades, and a handful of Eugene Onegins. How many of Britten's operas were mentioned before I added the table of works? Fewer than half of them were mentioned by name, and none appear in the recordings (even if Britten himself conducted). Re-bannering could be the first small step to getting this sorted out. Surely we can recognise that something needs to be done, even if we don't yet have a completely clear idea and consensus of what!! Scarabocchio (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gee this is a long discussion. Could anyone summarize the main responses to "where this project can improve"? -- kosboot (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick and not yet mulled-over thought: is there a reason why OP-bannered pages called, eg, The Operas of Tchaikovsky couldn't be created? Opera output tends to be slightly separate from the rest of a composers works, eg Mozart, and I don't think this would cause problems almost-instinct 20:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It might just be me, but I thought that Mozart's position in the Western canon was due to his operas. I would argue very strongly against moving such a large proportion of his work (and even larger proportion of his most significant work) out of the main article as it would damage the balance (and mask his opera work).

[quick aside: I was brought up in an opera-free classical music world - even so, Mozart was one of the top 3 (with Beethoven & Bach) in that world's estimation. Occasionally someone might mention Don Giovanni, but only in relation to that piano concerto almost-instinct 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)]

I'm obviously missing something very basic about the WP mind-set .. why can't two (or more) projects register an interest in a given subject? Giuseppe Verdi is bannered by WP Opera and WP Italy .. updates can be made by members of either group or by people in no group at all. If an article is bannered by a project, it helps keep it on the radar. Can someone explain why this is a "bad thing"? Scarabocchio (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See also here for a parallel (mini-)thread on this issue. I am not worried too much by double-bannering, but there is a problem when Mendelssohn figures in the WPOpera list and Mozart and Tchaikovsky don't. In the case of Tchaikovsky, the main article is by now so impenetrable (and seems to me to be beyond repair without a complete rewrite, despite the FA status accorded it in an earlier incarnation) that a separate (equally impenetrable) article Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky exists which despite its length also mentions the operas more or less only in passing. And indeed, I note there is a Symphonies by Tchaikovsky (which seems rather unfair to Boris Tchaikovsky - needs renaming). Given the existence of these latter articles, the creation of Operas of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky seems to me plausible and acceptable - indeed, desirable. --Smerus (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a Wikipedia-wide mindset, it's a view that was taken by the OP several years ago and one which I personally think should be applied more flexibly. Projects take a variety of views towards bannering. If you're interested, you can read past OP discussions on the issue in the archives, e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are more, just type "banner" into the search box here. Wikipedia-wide guidance on bannering, can be found here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noted for example that Sergei Prokofiev isn't listed under WPOpera - and moreover the main article on him barely mentions the operas (although there is a section on the early ballets). There is an issue here we need to deal with I think - I would propose (to get the ball rolling) that, at least, we accept/endorse double-bannering and go through the composer main articles to ensure that opera is properly represented in them. Possible a large task but a very important one.--Smerus (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-assessment: How "healthy" is your project?

Would you say that your project is thriving, declining, effectual, struggling, etc.?

There are two interesting factoids to note from the Revision history statistics on the Talk page history. The first, not very encouraging, is that the project launched in 2004, built slowly, and then raced to a peak in 2007 and 2008 with ~3000 edits per year to the talk page and then declined to 1000 edits per year in 2011. Activity on WP project talk pages doesn't necessarily equate to degrees of involvement, but our starting assumption must be towards the "declining project" thesis.

The second is, perhaps, rather more exploitable ... in the peak years, there was an increase in activity in June/ July of each year. As this coincides with the end of the opera season (in the northern hemisphere), it might be an idea to co-ordinate membership drives with this time of year.

Scarabocchio (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-assessment: How can this project expand?

How can this project reach out to and nurture newcomers to Wikipedia who share an interest in the project's goals?

After I had achieved some minimal kind of understanding of the forest of TLAs, and fought my way through the endlessly cross-referenced guides of how to write articles, I sat down in proselytising mood with the archetypal back of an envelope, and noted the names of ten friends who could/ should/ might be involved in WP (though not necessarily in the area of opera) -- people who had clearly demonstrated an interest in keeping their brains and intellects active, formally through PhDs or the Open University, or informally through evening classes etc. First (slight) surprise: not one of them was currently engaged in WP. Second (slight) surprise: the reactions to WP were overwhelmingly negative: "Wikipedia was wrong", "WP was full of errors", or "WP was not very good".

I explained the mechanics, I argued for engaging in the WP project, I challenged them to improve things. I gave up after six conversations, having made no progress, no converts.

We are now in the middle period of WP. In the early days, editors were (presumably) happy to carve out plots of virgin territory as pioneers. Now, there's an expectation (or rather a requirement?) that what's there already works well, and this is not (obviously) true. One key part of my own Damascene moment (to downgrade my involvement with WP) was, oddly, a comment posted by Smerus to a BBC board to celebrate a WP Opera milestone. I had started work on addressing some of the more major problems of the rather poor Benjamin Britten article. One responder to Smerus' post noted that the Tchaikovsky article was mostly about his sexuality and no mention was made of the operas. The Britten article was the same. The Tchaikovsky article was (apparently) changed to include a list of his operas ... at least the titles would have been mentioned ... but this was later removed. I looked at the Britten article -- could I, with hand on heart, encourage anyone (newcomer, or old-hand) to try to correct its balance, its flaws, omissions knowing that the same fate might be in store? Did I want to try it myself? I found around seven biographies of Britten when I did my research, and the WP article came in at number eight in terms of quality. Could I move it up? Could 'we' move it up? As was observed on the talk page, the problems with the page are not errors as such, but balance: This article is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. I do not regard myself as an expert on Britten, but I am a doctoral student in music composition presently, and I have closely studied Britten’s music and his life. The facts stated in this article seem to be accurate—i.e., dates of works, and the chronology of Britten’s life, but ...

The simple ability to add information is not enough. Any article that reaches for coherence and balance as well as truth and accuracy needs an informed and capable editor (in the general sense of one who controls, removes and approves (seals) information).

How can this project find new contributors? It needs to offer the possibility of making lasting contributions to the encyclopedia as it is now -- established, if not yet mature throughout. It needs to find a different kind of person -- one who is interested in conferring stability and balance, and it needs to offer the tools and structures to support that.

Scarabocchio (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, this is a fundamental problem with Wikipedia itself, not this project. It's pretty obvious that the major articles are often the worst. I've written several articles on Iranian history but I've rarely touched the History of Iran page, because it's always going to be dreadful, no matter what you do. There are simply too many people sticking their oar in (POV-pushers, axe-grinders, other obsessives,Randy in Boise, various taggers). There's also the "packing a suitcase for your holiday" problem: no one can ever decide what to include and what to omit. The big unspoken problem with Wikipedia is that crowd-sourcing does not work. The best articles are usually written by one or two people who know what they are talking about. But try taking charge of a popular article in the way you suggest and very soon you'll be up in court for violating WP:OWN. This is why the best content editors often prefer to concentrate on more specialised pages. --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I entirely endorse Folantin's views above. In fact, one of most bruising experiences I had on Wikipedia was attempting, initally single-handed, to clean up the Tchaikovsky article Scarabocchio mentions, where at the time over half the article was devoted to ramblings on the composer's alleged love-life. (It is true alas that the opera list has since been removed, but frankly my soul wilts at the thought of attempting that breach again).--Smerus 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I identify with your experience, Smerus (I bet most Wikipedians do). I feel I learned to get over such experiences by approaching any editing as a collaborative task, knowing that whatever I write will be hashed over by others. It really helps to lower one's self-importance and creates more of a collaborative environment. I'm not writing for the ages, but writing for others to examine and emend if necessary. -- kosboot (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to own any articles, but there's a particular kind/ degree of violence towards the Britten and the Tchaikovsky article that means that contributors don't just expect to see their work superceded by something better (great!), or the same quality but reworded (well, ok), but lesser. What might be good is a way of closing down the access a little -- to stop or slow the changes to 'problematic' or key articles. I've got used to the wait for approval on articles in de:WP. Would something similar for articles that WikiProject Opera has designated as "Vital Articles" or which have achieved a certain quality level be possible/ desirable? A sort of semi-protection for key articles that would encourage people to take more ownership (in the outside world, 'ownership' is seen as good thing as it equates to a bigger involvement, or (shudder) "buy-in")?

I completely recognise and agree with the responses of Folantin and Smerus. The question is .. how do we break this situation up?

Scarabocchio (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, with some of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries pages, some were vandalized so often that editors didn't hesitate to put holds on them for a day, 2 days, 3 days, etc. For "controversial" articles, perhaps it could be suggested to avoid the frozen main page and write the drafts on the talk pages (like a sandbox) and when a finished version has arrived that, then to insert that in the main article. -- 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We are veering off topic (how can the project expand) somewhat here!!--Smerus 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict Scarabocchio. the short answer is there is no way to "close down access", even a little, except for pure vandalism, BLP issues, or major edit warring. As I wrote above, this is a meta-Wikipedia issue and a pending changes tool (a la German WP), even for biographies of living persons was rejected. There is a bit of an unwritten rule that FAs should not be significantly altered without a proposal on their pages first, but that's about as far as it goes, and even then people will go ahead, sometimes for better, but often for worse. There's no way a project can set up a fence around an article and ask that it not be edited without project members' approval. The most an article's watchers/principal authors can do is revert or modify the changes (sometimes also having to engage in utter time-sinks on the talk page if the editor is insistent). Thus, there's no way that editors could be recruited via the incentive that they could make a lasting, and "stable" contribution. I'm also not sure that's the best way to recruit new editors who will stay the course anyway. Several were recruited back in 2005 via an appeal on the Opera-L mailing list. A few them stayed on, but most dropped out because they didn't find WP's insistence on "anyone can edit" and "no original research" congenial. I personally think that we ought to start by reaching out to existing WP editors who have made contributions to opera articles, but haven't joined or don't know about the project. We have invitation templates, we should use 'em. Voceditenore (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, to stay on topic. If you want to expand, one way might be to have a kind of online editathon: people post information (with the expectation that it will be edited), then experienced editors do their editing, explaining what/what they have made changes. In that way, if you can "show" people the whole process and result, it might be more enticing. Or perhaps prepare a PowerPoint or similar presentation (e.g. Google Docs) to show the various stages and to indicate the pleasure that results from having worked on an article. Also - another appeal to OPERA-L might work - and the OperaProject can extend its "social" influence and get a page on Facebook - another means of soliciting/encouraging those who might be interested. -- kosboot (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I just thought of a supreme way to get people: Have Kleinzach or Voceditenore be interviewed by Margaret Juntwait. -- kosboot (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

(cut from a thread above)

Forgive a bit more autobiography, but my own experience may also suggest a way of attracting responsible editors for this and similar projects. I came to Wikipedia while I was preparing a doctoral dissertation after 30 years away from University. I found that by editing and creating articles, mostly related to my topic, under the generally supportive aegis of the Opera and Composers Projects, I was able to practice writing clearly, citing appropriate sources and responding to criticism.(Though not always suitably gracefully :-}). I therefore owe Wikipedia and the Project fulsome thanks for their help in my thesis (and indeed for the book based on it now being published). So how about taking this experience (and similar ones) to music departments at universities and colleges as an example for students of how helping Wikipedia can help them as well?--Smerus 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea (and thanks for the autobiographical insight!). I'd be prepared to push for this. Does anyone have experience in mentoring WP newbies? Scarabocchio (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I do. For the last four years, I've mentored a small class at Longy School of Music, whose professor uses Wikipedia as an assignment. They mostly work on articles related to contemporary classical music. It's a lot of work, but can be very rewarding. Voceditenore (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave a seminar for my fellow postgraduate students on WP article creation (including creating an article in real time). It was good fun - don't know how many of them carried on to be editors themsleves though - --Smerus (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, both about where to find the potential contributors and what sort of incentive/ target/ purpose can be provided. It seems that contributors are easier to find than purposes. "Come and play" is just not good enough. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I served as an Online Ambassador for a semester - nothing to do with opera, just showing the students the ropes and commenting on their articles, talk page etiquette, etc. Good interaction with one or two of them, zero interaction with others, but, of course, all online rather than in person. --GuillaumeTell 18:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)