Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

Opera Composer 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. - Adam Cuerden talk [edit] Composer of the Month for August 2024 Click Here to set up August's Composer of the Month! [edit] Opera of the Month for August 2024 Click Here to set up August's Opera of the Month! Click here to show the September and October Opera and Composer of the Month preparation areas [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! [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!

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 • Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 • Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 • Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 • Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 • Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 • Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 • Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 • Archive 28

Default sort tagging help needed!

Looking at Category:Operas under letter I or L, there are a lot of operas mis-sorted under definite/indefinite articles. These need default sort tags e.g. {{DEFAULTSORT:Clemenza di Tito, La}} which puts the opera under C instead of L. Does anyone have time to help do this?

BTW We now have 779 operas restored in Category:Operas. There are probably about 200 more to be found. I don't know if anyone would be willing to undertake, say, Rachmaninoff to Richard Strauss operas? -- Kleinzach 13:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I can make a start on the Is and Ls. --GuillaumeTell 16:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now defaultsort-tagged all the Category:Opera titles still indexed under I, Il, L', La, Le, Les, The, Die and El. The T section may still look as if some titles (The Tempest, The Telephone, The Threepenny Opera) are indexed under The, but in fact they are correctly filed under Tem, Tel and Thr. --GuillaumeTell 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished all the As. Not many needed restoring, but now nine out of the eleven compositions by composer categories under the As are now created by me. --Peter cohen 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I have now checked S to Z on The opera corpus and we are now up to 803 titles in Category:Operas. In many sections half of all the operas had been removed so I may be underestimating the number we still haven't found. (I haven't been able to work out the way the operas were selected so there is no easy way to identify them). -- Kleinzach 10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked Gomes to Z and we have 944 titles so far in Category:Operas. -- Kleinzach 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles on young singers

We are seeing more and more articles on marginally notable young singers. Here are two examples that have just been created: Paul Potts "a 36 year old resident of South Wales and a mobile phone salesman . . . has an apprenticeship with Gilbert and Sullivan in Bristol . . . has appeared on national and local television and radio", and David Lara "an emerging baritone . . . recently one of the 11 talented singers chosen to train with the Seattle Opera Young Artists Company". Should these pages be put up for deletion and if so what criteria should we use? (It's worth noting that these pages are increasingly sophisticated in the way they are presented.) -- Kleinzach 01:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a slightly more friendly first step would be to add the {{notability}} tag to the article and wait a few days before proposing for deletion. While these articles are probably self promotion, they are probably sufficiently sophisticated not to warrant speedy deletion. Best, Voceditenore 10:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, though I was really wondering what criteria we should use for judging these pages. Notability is not the clearest of WP policies. (It was recently used to justify a page about an opera which didn't exist.) It's also not easy to apply in the (contrasting) cases of Paul Potts and David Lara. Anyway there is now an Afd discussion about David Lara. -- Kleinzach 11:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Potts, this diff indicates that he or his fans are causing some disruption. And though his teacher (Ian Comboy) is or was a respectable singer, I don't think that appearing on a Michael Barrymore show or in amateur opera productions (or on YouTube!) are particularly notable. The notability criteria for Music (section entitled "Others") might be helpful here. --GuillaumeTell 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, if there's one thing that really annoys me it's BrightYoungThing spam. Composers, performers, conductors, doesn't matter, they just assume they're notable, because, well, they're Bright Young Things, aren't they, dude?

Reminds me, one day we should take a crack at sorting out WP:MUSIC, which is ridiculously biased towards pop music, and does not cover classical music properly at all - the "Others" section is just not specific enough. It's not dreadful, but it should be better.

You can use the proposed deletion process - basically just add {{subst:prod|put reason here}} and an informative edit summary - for uncontroversial cases, or use AfD if the PROD tag is removed or for more tricky cases. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that Potts has apparently just won some sort of "reality" TV show, so we won't be able to get rid of him (any more than we can get rid of articles on individual Hollyoaks characters). I do think that we could at least remove his "Welsh opera singers" category, though. --GuillaumeTell 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ironic that David Lara has been deleted but Potts flourishes. I've removed the project banner. I see there has been edit warring on the page already, so I am not going to do more. -- Kleinzach 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Section on Opera Project page?

Here's a rough draft of a posible section:

Under current Wikipedia policy we cannot use non-free publicity images to illustrate articles about contemporary opera singers, composers, and librettists. Nor can we use images from album or book covers which depict them (except in very restricted cases). We therefore very much welcome contributions of good quality photographs which the photographers/copyright holders are willing to release under a free license. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your work, you grant permission for others to use, copy, and share the photograph freely, and even potentially use it commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves. A free license only concerns copyright, and does not restrict the option to take action against anyone who uses the photograph in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. If you grant a free license, we will credit you for your work, and if applicable, and provide a link back to your website. If you would like to contribute a photograph under free license, please leave a note on the Opera Project Talk Page

There could also be an addition such as:

We are particularly looking for photographs to illustrate the following articles: Article Name; Article Name; Article Name...

Best, Voceditenore 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's complicated but dare I suggest cutting the text roughly in half? That way people are much more likely to read it. The 'We are particularly looking . . . ." could go in the Can you help? (8) section. -- Kleinzach 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about this one...

We cannot use publicity images to illustrate articles about contemporary opera singers, composers, and librettists unless they have been released under a free license. To improve the quality of those articles, we very much welcome contributions of good quality photographs which the photographers/copyright holders are willing to release under such a license. You would retain the copyright of your work but grant permission for others to use and publish the photograph freely. We will credit you for your work, and if applicable, provide a link back to your website. If you can contribute a photograph under free license, please leave a note on the Opera Project Talk Page.

Best, Voceditenore 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. We definitely need something like this. Something else that might be worth mentioning is the need to be avoid fair use "galleries", both of images and of audio clips. Maria Callas, until recently, had a fair use image gallery that was not permissible, and on plenty of pop music articles I've had to delete entire fair use sound galleries of maybe twenty clips, for which there is no justification. I haven't seen this happen yet with opera articles, but we should try to prevent it before it does. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... I tried an experiment by putting that shortened message on the talk page for Juan Diego Flórez. And I got an almost immediate response. Someone added a fair use image of one of his CD covers! (Sigh) I guess the message really needs to point out explicitly that CD covers are not free images. I guess I'll nip over to the JDF talk page tomorrow and add that bit. Best, Voceditenore 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry to take so long to reply). One problem is that the project page is a kind of 'internal' document, addressing participants in the project, rather than copyright holders directly. So I have taken the liberty of rephrasing it. Here it is:

We welcome contributions of good quality photographs for articles about operas, singers and composers etc. if and when photographers (or copyright holders) are willing to release them under a free license. Under this arrangement the holder (who would be credited) retains the copyright of the work, but grants permission to others to freely use and publish the image.

Regrettably we are unable to use photos (or audio clips) based on a 'fair use'/'fair dealing', as we are neither reviewing or promoting artists or works on WP, which is the normal condition for using them.

Is that OK? Please have a go at improving it if you think it's not on target. -- Kleinzach 06:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Best, Voceditenore 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added it to the project page, under the Articles section, item 12.6. -- Kleinzach 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Plowright - Mezzo Soprano

The above has turned up on the new article bot's list. It was contributed by User:Rplowright and has already acquired an automated query (on the talk page) about the image. The content is pretty much verbatim from the Biography page of her website. If she wrote this herself, it violates WP:AUTO. What to do?

• Ask on the talk page, or the contributor's talk page, or via the contact page on her website whether (s)he is RP and holds the copyright? If she says yes to both, then what?
• Put it down for Speedy deletion and put up a copyvio notice on the page?
• Do nothing except rename, rewrite and wikify the article (it needs all of those!), which I could do quite easily (she's in Grove and elsewhere).

All suggestions gratefully received. --GuillaumeTell 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that she is notable - and the user has adopted her name! - I might communicate on her talk page. If she is who she might well be, then it would be a good idea to explain how WP works and offer to rewrite it based on Grove etc. The photo could be a pain, but that's why I think we need someone to specialize in clearing image copyrights. -- Kleinzach 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On my first look at the article I don't think there's anything that screams delete to me. The description of "one of Britain's leading opera stars" is the closest to a judgement as opposed to a fact in it but I wouldn't argue with that assessment anyway. It's certainly a lot less of a hagiography than Gwyneth Jones (opera singer) was. What are needed to improve the article are some references and rather fewer lists.

If she is RP or a relative with the same initials, she at least ought to know or be able to find out the picture copyright status and might be able to assign use of it to us. --Peter cohen 18:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

She is a soprano --Al Pereira(talk) 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

She has been a soprano, but she now sings mezzi roles such as Fricka and Amneris. --Peter cohen 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok but her main carreer was as soprano, right? BTW, I remember indeed her difficulties with high notes. --Al Pereira(talk) 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting delete as such, but if the person who created the article isn't Plowright herself, it's a flagrant copyright violation - check the link to the Plowright website that I posted up at the top and compare. Even if it is Plowright, it needs a fair bit of work to turn it into a decent WP article. --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted a query on the user talk page about copyright etc. --Peter cohen 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If she doesn't respond - it doesn't seem she has been online for the past few days - I suggest we go ahead and rewrite the article. -- Kleinzach 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Peter cohen has done quite a good job on that already. --GuillaumeTell 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only passed Kleinzach's edit total about twelve hours ago. In any case, I think there could still be allegations of plagiarism or copyright breach if someone compared the article with the original source. --Peter cohen 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'll do a bit of pruning and reorganising (tomorrow). And I can add her birthdate ("I can tell a woman's age in half a minute - and I do"). -- King Gama, aka GuillaumeTell 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Done

The bot has finished running through the category list and adding your project banner. By my count, there are 3,565 articles.

The next step, of course, is maintenance. One of the benefits of having all your articles tagged is that the bot can make periodic reviews of the articles and let you know where there are ones in need of improvement. The bot currently does this for three or four projects. It produces two lists - for an example, let's look at WP:CM. The two pages it produces are a long list of all articles needing cleanup, wikification, sources, whatever - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/To-do list; and a short list, which is a random subset of the long list suitable for including in a "To-Do" template - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Small to-do list and to see how we use the short list in a "to do" template, see WT:LGBT. Pages that may be up for deletion will show up on both.

Another part of maintenance is to review the categories for new articles that have been added to the cats, but don't yet have banners. The LGBT WikiProject does a periodic run and produces a report - see WP:LGBT/NP. WP:Chicago does the run and automatically adds the banner. The bot is set up to run either way.

Let me know if you'd like either of these options set up, or if the bot has made any serious errors in it's tagging. Thanks much!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought that both of the above options would be useful. Something else that I've noticed (if we're going to dip a toe into the assessment water at some point) is a nice table of stubs, FAs, unassessed, etc. - see the assessment page at the Yorkshire project for an example from another project that hasn't started assessment but has been putting up banners. --GuillaumeTell 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those statistics are gathered by a different, very useful, bot. I haven't done it for a project, but instructions for using that bot are at: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to SatyrTN for a terrific job. (Great to have a techy, sorry technocrat, on our side for once!) I agree with GuillaumeTell that both maintenance options will be probably be worthwhile. (We will need to discuss the implications of all this.) Kleinzach 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3,530 articles on opera!

I have now removed the banner from 35 non-opera singers who were in the basic voice categories, which gives us a revised grand total of 3530 opera articles. In May 2006 I could only identify 1,835 articles. That count was almost certainly an underestimate, but there is no doubt that the Opera Projct is developing rapidly. -- Kleinzach 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So if it it takes one editor one week to review one article, how long does it take 25 editors to review 3530 articles? I suppose the stubs, at least, will already be rated. --Peter cohen 12:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the banner from 2 Il Divo’s singers - Carlos Marín and David Miller. Kleinzach has removed the banner from the other 2 (Sébastien Izambard and Urs Bühler‎) earlier. - Jay 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the wiki article and sources like [1] are correct, three of them are opera singers and could be tagged. --Peter cohen 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they mostly aren't very specific about the calibre of the companies they worked with. And I doubt that any of them will be going back to opera any time soon! (Why aren't they called "I Divi"? Oh well, never mind.) --GuillaumeTell 13:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No you cant because Il Divo or 3 of them have make an announcement that they will NOT sing opera arias. And so far, only David and Carlos have been acting (quite sometimes ago). They don’t involve in opera anymore today. As for Urs.. he is not, have you heard him singing? - Jay 13:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach probably made the right decisions in the first place. The tagging was driven by the voice classes and whether he thought it was appropriate for people to remain labelled.

Looking at David Miller [2] [3], he's played major roles in quite big productions

I can 't find details of where Carlos Marin has sung the major roles dmentioned in his bio, but I notice he appears on at least one full opera recording: Martín y Soler - La capricciosa corretta

Marguerite Krull (Ciprigna); Rafaella Milanesi (Cilia); Katia Velletaz (Isabella); Yves Saelens (Lelio); Emiliano Gonzalez-Toro (Valerio); Josep Miquel Ramon (Fiuta); Enrique Baquerizo (Bonario); Carlos Marin (Gon Giglio) Les Talens Lyriques Christophe Rousset, condcutor Naïve E 8887 (2 cds; texts and translations in English and French) which the cast appear to have performed live in Lausanne in December 2002.

In fact[4] implies he has several recordings:

• In these last years he has won acclaim as primo baritono in several operas, including La Traviata, The Barber of Seville, La Boheme, Lucia di Lammermoor and Madame Butterfly. Some of his most distinguished opera performances available on record are Mercutio in Campoamor (Oviedo), Don Giglio in La Capricciosa Corretta (highly recommended for opera lovers), or in Damut’s version of Marina.
• Marin has also participated in zarzuela (Spanish operetta). He participated in the zarzuelas in the Jardines de Sabatini (Sabatini Gardens in Madrid) point of encounter for the music lovers during the summer season at the Gardens of Madrid’s Royal Palace. Some of his performances in the Spanish operetta can be found in DVD like La Gran Vía (The Great Way), La Revoltosa (The Rebellious), where he plays Fernando, and La Verbena de la Paloma (The Pigeon’s Festival), where he plays Julián. --Peter cohen 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not worry about this. Actually one other tenor editor asked for the banner to go back on. No one has asked for it to come off as far as I'm aware. Anyway let's stick with the figure of 3,530. (I've made a new section to hive this off. Hope that's OK with everyone.) -- Kleinzach 13:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

seeking help with Comédie-Italienne

Hello, over the past few days I've done a translation of this article from the French, but there are some parts of the original article that leave me puzzled. It's partly because I'm more of an anglophone than a francophone, and partly because I just don't know much about that time period. I would really appreciate another pair of eyes to compare the English and the French to see what I've missed or gotten outright wrong, because I've gotten a bit burned out right now from looking at the thing. Thanks, --Kyoko 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, though my French is of 'Allo 'Allo qualities. Folantin is better at this sort of thing than I. Perhaps Grove has something I can add. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 08:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Initial impressions are extremely positive. Nice work! I think the big problem is the nightmare of what we do with French capitalisation in some of those titles (it's been discussed here before). I'll play around with it and you should see some of those red links turn blue. Any other specific problems you suspect, Kyoko? --Folantin 09:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've left a note on the talk page as regards the first picture (someone needs to transfer it to Commons, assuming the license is valid). But yes, very impressive stuff, bravo! Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of material on the Comédie-Italienne/Théâtre Italien in the article on Paris in Grove. Anyway the article looks good. -- Kleinzach 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the compliments! One thing that I don't quite get is the subject of the independence of the theatres. I understand to some extent that in the past, plays were subject to the scrutiny of the crown, but I don't know quite when that stopped. There is a phrase in the French article, during the Restoration, that says "De 1815 à 1818 le Théâtre royal italien a retrouvé son indépendance." I don't understand how to reconcile that statement with the following paragraph where it says that Catalani's privilège was revoked and the theatre shut down. It's as if the theatre is independent of royal control and yet it's not, and it makes for confusing reading. --Kyoko 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

This article is currently a Featured Article Candidate, if anyone wants to have a look. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops :)

We may get a couple of these, so keep an eye out... [5] -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's because he's in Category:Tenors, (sandwiched, if that's the right word, between Lauritz Melchior and Vernon Midgley), right? I'm dubious about whether we need the banner for Midgley, either. --GuillaumeTell 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mercury was on my list of 35 special exceptions so absolutely no bot problem there. (I've dealt with all of them now.) I gave the benefit of the doubt to Vernon Midgley - probably not very notable anyway. -- Kleinzach 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox: To remove or not to.. better do it once and for all

To avoid misunderstanding especially from the die-heart fans, I think we should remove the infoboxes from all operatic singers – famous or less famous. Some people put it back on because they thought we being “double standard” – simply because famous operatic singers have info boxes in their articles. I just removed from Pavarotti, Caruso and Domingo. See how it goes from here. (It feels a bit sad for me to remove it from Domingo’s article because it looks “nice” in there..) I truly understand why some people were unhappy and decided to put them back on again and again after some of you removed them. Usually when we have our “pet singers”, we tend to “protect” them.. to the extreme :)) I seriously understand the notion. - Jay 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pavarotti one seems to have made a specialty out of pointing out the obvious. Genre = Classical music? Instrument = voice ? No, you don't say (and I always think that Instrument = voice sounds so strange). Moreschi ^Talk 10:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if you're an opera singer, surely your instrument is naturally going to be your voice? So much for professionalism. Moreschi ^Talk 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The background to this was a case of racial abuse from an IP user (now temporarily banned) on the Lauritz Melchior article. (Perhaps comically, he thought I was Chinese rather than a height-challenged German.) -- Kleinzach 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not remove infoboxes. The Opera Wikiproject may not like infoboxes, but webpages about operatic singers and composers do not exclusively "belong" to this project. These are biographies also included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which places a high value on infoboxes for all biographies. I restored the infobox for Grace Moore, who (by the way) was clearly a movie star and pop singer, not "just" an opera singer. (I am not particularly fond of infoboxes; I simply don't think that Opera project participants should be removing them, considering that Biography project participants think they are vital.)--orlady 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm.. so whats the verdict now? - Jay 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though Biography is more of a meta-project than anything else (it's really too big to be practical for any other usage). In cases where opera singers do plenty of other things as well, we should look at the box on a case-by-case system. Moreschi ^Talk 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be a silly idea, but what if there were infoboxes that could be expanded or collapsed, much the same way that tables of contents are on certain page. That way, if you want to see an infobox, you would click on the "show" and it would be visible. If you don't want to see it, you could click on "hide" and the box would shrink into something like "Luciano Pavarotti (show)". --Kyoko 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Or probably.. the silliest idea is to differentiate the “pure” and the “mixed” operatic singers. Pavarotti and Domingo for example are unlike Grace Moore. They are not Hollywood or movie stars or pop stars but purely operatic singers .. even occasionally singing “crossover”. So, lets the “mixed” singers keep their infoboxes but the “pure” don’t! This is just the silly thought! I'm laughing while writing this. Sorry. - Jay 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be mislead by the Grace Moore article. She was a serious singer. She worked in Hollywood but so did many other singers of that period. The info box says she sang pop but I've seen no evidence for this. Also she made her debut in Paris not New York etc. -- Kleinzach 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is going to run and run, and waste a lot of time and energy. Not to mention potential to-ing and fro-ing with the Biography Project and resultant ill-feeling. I personally don't have strong feelings one way or another. At least the background colour is reasonably tasteful. ;-) Perhaps a compromise could be that infoboxes are only added to opera singer articles if there is an available free use photo. Otherwise they are redundant and distracting since they simply repeat the information in the lead paragraph with possibly the addition of the official web site (if any). Perhaps, the OP could also agree on a uniform format for filling in the fields for standard opera singers that doesn't look goofy. (The 'Instrument' field isn't obligatory for example). Here's an example in my sandbox Best, Voceditenore 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a policy in place now against using infonoxes this says: New infoboxes: We hope all new infoboxes will be proposed and discussed on the project talk page before being added to individual pages. We deplore the use of generic infoboxes that have not been designed with opera in mind, and contain factual errors and ambiguities. Remember: factual accuracy is essential, infoboxes aren't.

This policy can be changed but I hope it won't. THis policy has been successful in getting them off almost all of the 3,500 opera pages. The danger is that if we allow them on singer pages, we will soon see them back on composer pages and the rest, and then on opera title pages as well.

The main problem as ever with infoboxes is accuracy. Lauritz Melchior was described as a singer of 'opera and pop', Giuseppe di Stefano as a singer of 'opera and Canzone Neapolitana', and Grace Moore currently as 'opera and pop', occupation 'singer and actress'.

Melchior did of course appear on TV a few times. Di Stefano did make one recording on Neapolitan songs and Grace Moore did make films - in which she sang. (The Moore article concentrates on her as an American celebrity, failing to mention that she made her debut as Mimi at the Opéra-Comique in 1928 etc.). However there's no doubt that all of them regarded themselves as opera singers and put all their effort in that direction.

I hope we can continue to try keep infoboxes out of opera articles (wherever possible without getting involved in edit wars) as part of a general policy to stick to accuracy and resists trivialization of the articles. (Obviously we should leave them alone when the articles come under other bona fide projects.)

There is a considerable history about the Biography Project, their trawling of opera articles and assignment of them to 'work groups' (to which I can direct anyone interested) however they have a cautious policy on infoboxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes says Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are tagging a scientist, academic, or "classical" composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page. Moreover the 'Infobox musical artist' (the one which is being used on singer pages) is specifically for popular musical artists not opera. -- Kleinzach 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach has a point about the accuracy of infoboxes. Infoboxes can provide a brief description of a subject, but they can just as easily oversimplify or give a misleading overview of the material. Not having infoboxes for opera-related articles is fine with me. --Kyoko 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems quite arrogant to me to argue that opera singers are somehow "above" infoboxes. If there's one problem I have with the whole Wikipedia classical music community, it is this rejection of infoboxes. They are used in almost every other biography article; why should classical musicians and composers be exempt? Because "factual inaccuracies" could find their way into the infoboxes? Then put the articles on your watchlist and make sure they don't; this can happen with any article. All your arguments against infoboxes apply to all singers, not just opera singers, so unless the convention is to be changed for every type of singer, we should remain consistent and use infoboxes in opera articles too. I am an opera and art music enthusiast myself, but this whole affair seems rather snobbish. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have seen it suggested that opera singers use their own infobox. That is fine; why don't we develop our own infobox and avoid this whole mess of genres and whatnot altogether? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. If there were an opera singer infobox, it could describe the singer's voice in more detail (Fach, etc.), as well as list some signature roles. Some reasons against having an infobox would be the duplication of material in the lead paragraph(s). --Kyoko 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the main problems with infoboxes, like all ancillary material, is that they can be made without referring to the article itself, hence the outrageous mistakes. We've been through all these discussions before and I don't think it's possible to make boxes that are proof aganist abuse. Even if they were better designed, that would still be a huge waste of time, putting off genuine contributors from writing articles. -- Kleinzach 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Opera Project is not alone in being against infoboxes. The other two closely related music projects: Composers and Classical Music are against having them. Many other projects in the sciences and arts also refuse to have them (see the reference to scientists and academics above). It's not just opera singers. To say, as Cielomobile does, that "They are used in almost every other biography article" is untrue. They aren't. -- Kleinzach 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile – about your suggestion for opera singer specific infobox. The problem with it is, it is not really the issue of “infobox” only. Say that we have a specific “infobox”, how could you tell whether the “said” singer is someone “operatic” or “opera + pop + movie star”. Look at Grace Moore - some people said she is an opera singer but to some, she is a movie + pop star. I just removed infoboxes from Renata Tebaldi, Kiri Te Kanawa, Raina Kabaivanska, Mirella Freni and Ileana Cotrubaş … hopefully nobody would come here and say “hey.. those are pop singers too, therefore their articles should have the infoboxes since they dont belong to opera project only!” If only we could set firm guideline on who are the undisputed opera singers (what I meant as PURE), I am sure, nobody would say anything because opera singers should fall under opera project. It supersedes all other projects (hopefully). But I doubt we could… - Jay 07:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Demarcation disputes will always be present while we have the project system. On the other hand we can take the attitude that Opera is a bit like the Chinese Empire, so wide in its scope that the project can give away territory without really noticing, (e.g the dispute we have just had with Cielomobile over Die Dreigroschenoper and Kurt Weill).

Setting guidelines on singers - other than having a good category system - is really not practical. However there is a common-sense question we can apply here : was opera the main thing for singer X? Re Grace Moore the answer must be yes, re Mario Lanza, for example, the answer is probably no. -- Kleinzach 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can tell that I don't have strong feelings either way regarding infoboxes, though I also think that a good introduction should be able to convey all of the info that an infobox might say. Really, the one thing I like most about infoboxes is that many of them add a picture of the subject at the top of the page, and you don't need an infobox to do that. --Kyoko 07:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. IMO we should always keep the pictutes and not delete them with the boxes. -- Kleinzach 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider about infoboxes is that they display basic information about the subject of the article in a more linear, easy-to-follow fashion (i.e. without prose that can often be difficult to navigate if you just want to get to the basic information). Anyway, if we just create a separate opera infobox, wouldn't that solve all the problems about genre and so forth? If we don't create the infobox and have a policy of not using infoboxes at all, there will still be disputes over whether the singer falls into the opera or popular music category, and hence whether there should be an infobox or not. If we create our own, I feel such disputes will not exist, or at least be much rarer (I think people are more likely to make a stink about there being some infobox than make a stink over there being a popular music infobox in place of an opera infobox). Like Kyoko said, if we made an opera-specific userbox, we could include details like fach and signature roles (signature arias as an optional field as well, perhaps; it would apply to some singers like Pavarotti). Or we could just keep it simple. Anyway, if you don't create fields that would lead to lots of false information, it won't be a problem. Just fields like picture, name, birth and death dates, years active, musical education, fach, signature roles, and signature aria(s). What could be the harm in that? I could draft up such an infobox, although I don't have much experience with templates (but I'm sure I could figure it out looking at the standard {{Infobox Person}}). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've drafted up a preliminary infobox at User:Cielomobile/Infobox Opera singer. Does that really seem unacceptable? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that infobox is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. It would soon accumulate the wrong kind of information and invite disputes of a kind obviated by careful phrasing in the article itself. The Opera Project has already decided after long discussions not to use infoboxes. It's all in the archives and those of the Composers Project. I suggest we give the subject a rest for at least another year. -- Kleinzach 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm bringing it up again; consensus can change. What if I removed the signature roles/arias field? With which fields do you have a problem? What kind of "wrong information" might it accumulate? I might post this at the village pump to bring the wider Wikipedia community into the discussion, as these discussions have been limited to an obstinate few. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHen was it last discussed? We have a fair turnover of membership of the project--Peter cohen 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

28 May (Archive 23) which points to the discussion at WikiProject Composers which lasted from 28 May to 16 June (still unarchived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers). -- Kleinzach 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Would Opera project members have any objection to a bare-bones biographical infobox? For example:

{{Infobox Biography | subject_name = | image_name = | image_size = | image_caption = | date_of_birth = | place_of_birth = | date_of_death = | place_of_death = }} --orlady 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes because that would duplicate the lead paragraph to no purpose. orlady please note I have replied to your reversion of the Grace Moore infobox on the article Talk page. Anyone else interested in the subject of Grace Moore as an opera singer is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I think the article treats her as American celebrity instead of as an international singer. Her adventutes in Hollywood were typical of those of singgers on her period, little different in fact from Pavarotti's Yes, Giorgio. -- Kleinzach 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for some singers it would be impossible to fill in even those "bare-bones" fields. See Anna Renzi for example. --Folantin 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach, this goes for all biography articles, not just those of opera singers. Why should opera singers receive special treatment (I would argue the same for composers and other people without infoboxes)? The consensus of the wider biography community has been to use infoboxes, even if some people disagree. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, in my opinion, the infobox (your sample) could lead to bigger argument someday. Yea, it is easy for some singer like Pavarotti but how about Domingo and other singers? (lets use Domingo as an example) I just posted Plácido Domingo complete repertoire in his article. If you read some magazines/newspapers etc, some people would say “Cassio” in Otello as his signature role but, some say “Otello” and there are people who would say “Mario Cavaradossi” and on and on. As a big fan of him, I don’t care what his signature role is, thts why I didnt bother to write. One more, signature aria.. how could we tell other than “Nessun Dorma” for Pavarotti. (again, browse in the net or magazines, many people would come up with their own ideas) Look at List of recordings by Plácido Domingo that I posted few weeks ago – with that list, I could imagine “huge” edit warring someday on both signatures. If you google on the net, many people have many ideas on opera singers signature arias.. with Domingo massive repertoire, it made it worst! I agree with Kleinzach, infobox like your sample would soon accumulate the wrong kind of information and invite disputes – huge edit warring. The format is not acceptable to me, sorry! The best is to leave the article to speak by itself, people can read and let them make their own judgement. - Jay 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we remove those two fields to me, then, just leaving the basics like birth date, death date, years active, education, and fach? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I looked for other groups of editors that oppose the use of infoboxes (such as for scientists), but I couldn't find any. Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin both have long had infoboxes, so it would seem that academics and scientists do indeed have infoboxes. The opposition of infoboxes seems to be limited to the classical music community. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is an {{Infobox Scientist}}. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Category:English naturalists you will find 49 articles. Only two have infoboxes: Darwin and Muffet. Cielomobile, please check the facts before you make these claims. You can also read the Biography Project archives for the names of editors who have opposed infoboxes. Almost all of them were from outside the three music projects. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile's note on the Project page

I have just found that Cielomobile put this note on the Project page:

*Note: this is currently being discussed on the talk page, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Infobox:_To_remove_or_not_to.._better_do_it_once_and_for_all.

I have removed it and ask him never to do this again. The Infobox policy was discussed here and the wording was agreed by the Project. It is not for one editor to announce the policy is under review especially when he/she is the only person challenging it. This is unacceptable behaviour. -- Kleinzach 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't put it up there again unless someone else agrees, but the way I see it, it's a bit like a {{POV}} note put on an article. It does not take consensus to note that the POV of an article is being disputed. If one or two edits think that there is POV, then a notice is placed on the article. The fact is, I'm not the only editor who is disputing this (I noticed that you are among only two edits who are adamant about the use of absolutely no infoboxes; other seem to be open to at least the possibility). If the final outcome of the discussion is that we are not to use infoboxes, then there should be no such note, but until then, editors should know that a discussion is currently taking place. Consensus can change, and past decisions is not set in stone. This is an official Wikipedia policy, Kleinzach, and unless you are going to ignore it, it should be respected. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of infoboxes has been discusssed repeatedly over several months. Each time it is re-affirmed that we are not going to use them, then a couple of weeks later (or less) someone comes along and announces, as you have done, that there is a debate in progress. Of course, consensus can change and it should change with changed circumstances, however if we have to engage in these sterile arguments ad nauseam it disrupts contributing to the encyclopedia. -- Kleinzach 01:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've posted at the village pump to get more people into the discussion. Perhaps consensus won't change, but I'd like to give it a chance. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile's wording should be restored to the project page. It has been clear for some time that there is no consensus on this issue. Wikipedia works by consensus-building, not affirmation by self-appointed cabals. Ongoing and wider discussion is necessary. Andy Mabbett 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus-building"? That's rich coming from you, Mabbett, with your persistent attempts to bulldoze everybody into accepting "microformats". --Folantin 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile's Straw poll on infoboxes

I thought I'd create a straw poll to gauge where rough consensus lies. I know that straw polls are evil, but they can be useful too.

Completely against the use of all infoboxes in articles about opera singers

• support - 1. For the articles in this project, they are redundant, distracting and trivial. All key information should be found in the first short paragraph. If it's not, fix it, don't slap an infobox on it. 2. Infoboxes are too open to innaccurate, misleading and/or over-simplified information, and add one more thing to 'police'. If the fields are reduced in number to avoid that, then they become redundant and trivial (see 1). 3. As Kleinzach said above, we should obviously leave them alone when the articles come under other bona fide projects (not simply umbrella projects like Biography) and where members of those projects have significantly contributed to the content of the articles. But these cases are relatively rare and can be handled on a case by case basis. Voceditenore 07:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Per Voceditenore plus all the other arguments I've made over the past few months. --Folantin 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• support - My comment below is too long already, I don’t have to say anything here. - Jay 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Since we are going to vote on this...look, even suggested replacement infoboxes have been heavily criticised. A singer's Fach is only one system of classification, is a fairly subjective one, and can change over time: that's just one problem. When matters are unambiguous and clear-cut, infoboxes can be highly useful as a brief summary of statistical date (as for medicine articles). For more complex matters, the infobox compresses too much, leading to ambiguity, error and confusion. They just don't work: not for singers, not for composers. Moreschi ^Talk 10:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. --GuillaumeTell 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above. -- Kleinzach 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support although if the main editor of an article feels strongly that one should remain, it should not be repeatedly removed. See comments below and on composer project page - they introduce inaccuracies, oversimplify, are redundant, and are insufficiently flexible to be applied to that most complex of subjects - a human being. Mak (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support -- I've said everything already at WP:Composers (were they canvassed?), at Edvard Grieg, at Steve Reich, at wherever else people have been forum shopping about this issue over the past two months. sigh. Actually, while I think infoboxes can be useful for statistical and quantitative data, I'd be in favor of removing them from all biographical articles. Though it would take away the amusement factor of seeing that Eichmann's "occupation" is "Nazi".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
  • Comment LOL! I don't remember my school careers officer discussing that as an option. I've half a mind to change Lord Byron's infobox to "Occupation:Democrat; Destination:Hell", which is how he filled in his details in a Swiss hotel register (if I remember right). --Folantin 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Willing to use a specific opera infobox, provided that it does not contain too many fields

An example infobox is here.

• Support per my arguments in the above section. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Other

• Please do not remove infoboxes. Badagnani 07:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? This is a discussion, not a vote. Several serious problems with infoboxes have been presented. Do you have a response to that? Moreschi ^Talk 10:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• The first choice Completely against the use of all infoboxes rather loads the question. Shouldn't it be Against the use of infoboxes in opera articles? I can see a use for them in articles about cities or countries, for example, which tend to be very long. But really, this whole business is quite a distraction and waste of time considering that there were lengthy discussions on this recently. There is so much more valuable work to do writing articles and improving the actual content of the current ones. Slapping infoboxes on them in a drive for 'graphic uniformity' when Wikipedia is light years away from any kind of 'quality uniformity' seems an odd priority of time and energy. Just my two cents. I shall vote and then spend the rest of my time actually working on articles, not discussing infoboxes. Best, Voceditenore 07:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a big waste of time. Infoboxes work well for sports stars (that's assuming they have no other career) but not for opera-related subjects. I'm fed up of wasting time on this issue. As I've constantly repeated, there is no policy saying we must have infoboxes and no consensus was ever sought to introduce them. --Folantin 07:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, here are my 2 cents, I don’t want to pick a fight or anything but I have to make you clear that we are exclusively talking about OPERA singers aka those who sings opera arias (90% of their times) using opera voices. Why do you have to invite people from popular music? We never stop them; by all mean... they can keep as many “boxes” as they want. I don’t bother to delete BACKSTREET BOYS infobox and as much as I don’t care if you want to call them “Bunch of great heldentenors” or labeling Britney Spears as a “Soprano” (they did, but someone removed it). We do not interfere in popular music singers and it is unfair for them to vote for our singers! Secondly, lets just cool down. BTW… may I know why you are so eager to place the infobox in opera singers’ articles? I don’t see you write much about them. So.. whats with all these arguments for? If somebody who has written many articles about opera singers raises an issue, it does make sense, but you? I hope you don’t find this as a personal attack, I am just curious. I like to suggest for you to drop the issue and let us in Opera project make our own decision. Chill man! Thanks. – Jay 08:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, yes, we are referring to exclusively opera singers who almost always sing in an operatic voice. I designed a specific infobox for these singers, see User:Cielomobile/Infobox Opera singer.

Have I been acting uncivil? I have tried to maintain the utmost level of civility, forgive me if I have not been doing so, and please tell me where I have acted out-of-line. Anyway, I have been editing articles related to music theory and classical music more often than I have been editing articles related to popular music, at least as of recent (see all the work I did to the article on homophony, and I am just starting to do some work on Concerto for Orchestra (Bartók), which I'd like to bring up to FA quality). I have done some editing of opera articles like A Flowering Tree, one of the new John Adams operas, although not much. I do have very much of an interest in opera outside of Wikipedia (I have been singing musical theater for a while now and am just starting to branch out into opera, which I enjoy very much, though I do not feel I have as much of a talent for it). However, having come from a popular music background, I understand that sometimes, art music afficionados can sometimes be absorbed in their own world and not accept criticism from outside. Another editor mentioned the famed cabal; now while I don't that that's an issue here, I do think that there is a slight issue of feelings of ownership of all articles related to opera, as shown by all the calls like "don't bring the popular music people into this; it's not their place!" While popular music editors should not intervene in terms of technical aspects of opera that would be lost on them, this dispute is not a technical matter. All editors can understand the arguments I have put forth. I have limited the infobox to fields that are no more debatable for opera singers than they are for any person (name, picture, birth and death dates/places, fach, place of musical education, years active, and website). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera singer’s Fach huh? Wanna bet? Please select one singer and publish this question anywhere - bulletin board at your college or at work or any opera houses or the easiest, internet. You will get many Fach type for the singer, so, which one do you want to use? I myself may disagree with others point of view when come to this. Singer’s fach is a very subjective matter; ask around if you don’t believe me. - Jay 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have a problem with "popular" singer editors jumping in and making a decision about "opera" singer articles is that there are very few who edit articles about people from the 17th century. The range of information on such singers is much more varied than for contemporary singers, and different issues come into play. We may only have information about years active. Or about when they were in one particular city but not when they were in any others. We may know what roles Handel wrote for them, but have no clue about what their voice really sounded like or what their website is. I don't have a problem with anyone contributing to the conversation, but I do think it's unfair to ask popular music editors to understand even the issues around historical opera singers, and I think this constant insistence that a larger consensus of editors than the ones who are actually editing the articles be reached frustrating and thoroughly annoying. I have no opinion on how TV show articles be formatted, or what sources are acceptable, and I would see someone constantly soliciting my opinion on such matters to be wasting my time. I don't see the need for a "higher power" to be constantly sought simply to leave infoboxes off a few articles. Mak (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's occurred to me that infoboxes work much better for articles that have certain well-defined, quantifiable parameters. Take a look at any chemical or pharmacological article, for example; you'll see a chemical structure, and certain verifiable characteristics, such as boiling point, or half life, or whatever. Infoboxes about more subjective topics seem to be more problematic. --Kyoko 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think I've said that about half a dozen times by now. Mak (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot maintenance

SatyrTN has kindly offered to follow up the bot run by generating 'to do' lists similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/To-do list and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Small to-do list, also to review the categories for new articles that have been added to the cats, but don't yet have banners. It seems a good idea to keep track of which articles have been tagged for lacking sources etc. Should we go ahead with this? -- Kleinzach 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Some points:

• The long list contains a number of operas, e.g. Falstaff (opera), and also opera singers (Poli, Köth) and potentially other articles more of interest to us than to the Classical Music folks (Will Crutchfield, perhaps?). Would it be possible to exclude such articles from the CM lists (while making sure that they appear on our list)?
• What is meant by "Articles needing verification"? Is this articles without (m)any sources or what?
• I thought that "Articles requiring cleanup" would be just articles with the Cleanup tag, but I see Summertime (song), which, arguably, comes within our remit, doesn't have this, so, again, it would be nice to know what the criteria are.
• The short list looks like a short version of the long list (duh!), but what are the criteria for selection for the short list?

--GuillaumeTell 10:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all!

The example above is, of course, run on WP:CM's articles (meaning articles with the WP:CM banner. It's not really feasible (nor productive) to exclude an article from one project's list because it's on another one. And that might lead to WP:OWN :)

The way the list is compiled is: The bot reviews all articles with your banner. It looks at each one to see if there is a cleanup banner on the article, and if there is, it adds the article to that group of cleanups. So even if an article desperately needs references, it won't show up in that section until someone adds a {{unreferenced}} tag to it.

To tell you the truth, I'm not exactly sure why "Summertime" is in the cleanup section, since it doesn't seem to have a cleanup tag. I'll look in on that.

The short list is just a random sample of the long list. It's meant to go on a project talk page so that someone just surfing for something to do may get interested, while the long list can be overwhelming :) Except for the deletion articles - that's exactly the same on the short and long lists.

Let me know if you have any other questions. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I can't see a WP:CM banner on Falstaff (opera), though. But maybe they removed it recently on the basis that it was WP:OWNed by us :) --GuillaumeTell 21:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think these lists could be very useful. Shall we go ahead with both? Anyone have any reservations etc.? -- Kleinzach 22:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes: Canvassing of WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS

Cielomobile has invited members of WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS, also WP:VP, to vote on whether we should have infoboxes on opera articles. Two of these projects WT:WPBIO and WT:MUSICIANS (which concentrates on popular music), have been instrumental in trying to promote infoboxes throughout WP. -- Kleinzach 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that these notices falls under WP:CANVAS#Friendly_notice, as the message I left was neutral, I posted to a limited number of venues, and I posted to venues that would likely solicit views from both sides (WP:CM would likely solicit views supporting the anti-infoboxes position, and the other two would likely solicit views supporting the pro-infoboxes position). I also posted on Kleinzach's talk page to inform him of this, so I did act with transparency. If you feel that I should remove one of the notices on either WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Musicians to "even out" the bias of the audience, so to speak, I would be happy to do that. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The text of WP:CANVAS#Friendly_notice states: It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed . . . . You have attempted to contact a huge number of editors. WT:WPBIO has 329 active members, WT:MUSICIANS has 54. -- Kleinzach 08:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's one thing for other projects to enter the discussion - fine. But what is the significance of a straw poll when the 'voting' is open to anyone regardless of whether they are current members of this project or have contributed significantly to opera articles? How does that illuminate the issue of consensus within this project? I thought that was the original assertion being questioned by Cielomobile on this page. Best, Voceditenore 08:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will remove the notice from one of the two WikiProjects, to "even it out" against the classical music WikiProject. Which would you prefer? The biography WikiProject, as it contains more members? Or the musicians WikiProject, as it contains popular music-oriented members? By the way, the classical music has something like 83 members (as I counted it on the list of participants; I might be off by a few), which would be less more than the musicians WikiProject. I'll go ahead and first remove it from the biography WikiProject, but if the other would be preferable, I could do that.

To Voceditenore, I express me concerns over "ownership" of articles above. I do not feel that this WikiProject has exclusive rights over all articles related to opera. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My questioning of the value of the poll has nothing to do with "ownership". Above, Kleinzach wrote: "The Opera Project has already decided after long discussions not to use infoboxes. It's all in the archives and those of the Composers Project. I suggest we give the subject a rest for at least another year." To which you replied: "Well, I'm bringing it up again; consensus can change.". I assumed from that exchange (wrongly?) that you wanted to see if that was still the consensus amongst current members of the Opera Project. If you did mean it that way, then canvassing people who have nothing to do with the project to 'vote' (as opposed to discuss) sheds no light at all on the issue of what the project's consensus is, and is both distracting and potentially disruptive. But enough of this. I have two articles to write on opera houses. Best, Voceditenore 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I just wrote down below, I initially did not plan on bringing in people from other WikiProjects to influence the consensus. By "consensus can change," I meant consensus within the WikiProject. Anyway, I'm going to remove the straw poll, as it's creating an unnecessary fuss that I'd rather avoid. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing to do is for the Project to archive the poll, as Kleinzach suggested below. Removing it completely would involve deleting all the comments by the other editors who participated in it - a real no-no both here and on Wikipedia in general. See Avoiding common mistakes. Best, Voceditenore 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's what I meant, I would archive the straw poll, not just delete it completely. I'd actually like to archive this whole business, because consensus is not emerging for infoboxes, and it's just a waste of time now. We could all be putting this time and effort towards better pusuits (I'd like to get back to Concerto for Orchestra (Bartok)). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice removed from the biography WikiProject. There are now only messages at the village pump, which would not solicit any particular type of response, the musicians WikiProject, which would likely solicit a pro-infobox response, and the classical music WikiProject, which would likely solicit an anti-infobox response. If this is more than a friendly notice, I don't see how. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing states: . . . a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. . . . Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.' And in the same document, Forum_shopping (one of four forms of canvassing) is defined as repeatedly asking for outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. -- Kleinzach 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach, I'm really getting tired of the accusations of bad faith. I've put up with it, but this is just getting on my nerves now. Please stop. I posted a few small notices, all neutral, to audiences with presumably differing points of view. I'm not the only editor who came here of his own accord and thought that wider community discussion would be a good idea. I've now deleted my notice at the biography WikiProject, so there really can be no claim that I am seeking to bring more people that would side with me into the discussion, as the other places at which I posted were the classical music WikiProject and the musicians WikiProject, which have a similar number of participants, and the village pump, which is the right place to post new policy proposals (people post this kind of stuff there all the time, and I have never seen a complaint about it before—if there is a better place to ask for wider community discussion without soliciting a specific response, I wouldn't know where). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying the messages I left on Kleinzach's talk page here, which I left before he brought this up:

"I should let you know that I posted the following message at a few relevant WikiProjects:

“ There is currently a discussion taking place here regarding whether infoboxes should be used for opera singers. Please weigh in if you'd like. (Notes left at WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS.) ”

I hope you don't view this as canvassing or votestacking, as I also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, the members of which will likely have views more in line with your own (members of the other WikiProjects are a toss-up, I think). I also hope that you don't harbor any ill feelings towards me; I know this is the second of two recent disputes we've had. Know that if consensus sides with you, I will not pursue the matter any further. Finally, I hope you didn't take my comment about arrogance as a personal attack (it was not meant to be construed as such, but rather an side-argument for the use of infoboxes, albeit not a great one...I now realize that it may have been a little out of place).

Cheers, and thank you for your civility in our disputes. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, I would appreciate it if you would come to me first regarding those messages before making a public spectacle of me. As I wrote earlier, I think it falls under the "friendly notice" section of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Like I wrote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, I would be happy to remove one of the two notices left on talk pages that would more likely attract pro-infobox editors. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 07:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)"

Proposal re. Straw poll on infoboxes

In view of the mass canvassing of unrelated, uninvolved editors in other projects, I propose the Opera Project cancels and archives the 'Straw Poll' forthwith. Please agree or disagree as appropriate. -- Kleinzach 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Your continued attempts to stifle debate on this matter, where there is clearly no consensus, would be laughable, were they not so potentially damaging. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just let the poll run its course. If consensus is in your favor, I will kindly withdraw from this debate. I also resent the use of the phrase "mass canvassing." I contacted two WikiProjects now, each with a different audience, and left a notice on the village pump. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If the poll is designed to find out what the consensus is amongst this project's participants, then it's meaningless if others are voting in it too. If it's supposed to find out what the consensus is throughout Wikipedia, isn't there a more appropriate page for it? Archiving the poll section on its own doesn't stifle discussion. People can discuss their heads off about infoboxes all over this page, and apparently do. ;-) Voceditenore 09:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Cielomobile , this has got nothing to do with what you said as “issue of feelings of ownership of all articles related to opera”. I just feel that the matter or the poll should be discussed / done within participants of the project. I seriously do not see why others should be invited. And since we have agreed not to put on the infobox, let the decision stays unless you have a very good reason why we should have it. Do you? Until now, I am still not convinced with your justification. I just don’t understand why you drag the matter, drop it man! Please.. - Jay 10:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"I just feel that the matter or the poll should be discussed / done within participants of the project" - please read WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"If the poll is designed to find out what the consensus is amongst this project's participants, then it's meaningless if others are voting in it too" - please read WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett 10:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the document is WP:CANVAS. -- Kleinzach 11:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there is one editor who shouldn't be taking part in any debate about opera-related topics it's Andy Mabbett, given his history of point violations in this area (e.g. [6]), which indicate he has little or no knowledge of the subject and is only here to cause disruption as part of his quest to impose microformats everywhere via infoboxes (apparently WP:OWN doesn't apply to WikiProject Microformats or its founder though). --Folantin 11:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"if there is one editor who shouldn't be taking part in any debate about opera-related topics it's Andy Mabbett" - That's a totally unacceptable statement. Shame on you. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Moreschi ^Talk 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we move away from the personal comments, please? If you would like to comment about Mr. Mabbett, there are other venues through which you may do so. Remember, there are no mastadons anymore! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Mabbett is a disruptive editor as his behaviour on opera topics and his extensive block log demonstrates [7]. He was actually banned by ArbCom from editing infoboxes for a while (later, as far as I'm aware, changed to a ban on reverting more than once a week which is still in effect). If you want to re-open this debate, you should try to find out more about its history (which, IIRC, goes back to late April) and why some of us are less than enthusiastic about going over the same old ground again. Mabbett is the founder of WikiProject:Microformats and his campaign to introduce microformats via infoboxes is well-known (especially to anyone who's visited WP:ANI). All this is relevant to this debate. --Folantin 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requested - There seems to be some confusion here. Cielomobile, since you added the poll, could you please clarify for us what you meant it to do? Did you intend it to find out if there was still consensus among participants of the Opera Project re infoboxes. Or did you intend it to find what the consensus was from all Wikipedia editors? Best, Voceditenore 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The poll was not meant for any particular audience. When I created it, I had already posted at the village pump, but I had not posted at the bio WikiProject, musician WikiProject, or classical music WikiProject, and I did not have the intention of doing so. So I suppose the original intention was to gauge consensus among participats within the WikiProject, in addition to anyone who might have found their way their through the village pump policy section (the purpose of which is just this sort of thing). I was certainly not planning some elaborate scheme of vote-stacking. Now that I have posted at those other WikiProjects, I believe that they have just as much right to express their opinions here as anyone within this project. If there truly is no cabal (and I don't think there is), then we should not stifle free speech and we should not exclude the wider community or prevent them from expressing their views here. I would like to get the opinion of the wider community, and I was hoping that we could do it here, rather than an RfC or something of the like, which would be unnecessary in my opinion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words a classic case of Forum shopping by Cielomobile. -- Kleinzach 12:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Cielomobile. Of course everyone has the right to express their views here. But from your previous comments in these discussions, I had the mistaken impression that you thought the consensus - solely amongst members of this project - might have changed, or could be changed, and that you initiated the poll to find out if that were the case. Since that was not your intention, and you had a much broader audience in mind, I'm not sure why this could not have simply continued as a discussion with all Wikipedia editors invited to join, rather than becoming a poll in which it was initially unclear exactly who was being polled and why. But nevermind.;-). Best, Voceditenore 12:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum shopping is a bit different than this.. this is what my grandma used to say as the true “opera”, libretto written in English by Cielomobile. As the original casts, we all know the synopsis - the drag screen play with no ending. Cielomobile, I am sure by now you have come to the senses (unless you have not) that most editors in this project are against your idea. Why not you just rest your case and move on… continue with your editing or daily work. We have ours too. This is not going to go anywhere. BTW, you have not answered my question. Please justify why are you so eager to put the infobox in opera singer’s articles. I am curious, what is in for you and for the articles? What good does it make to you and to the articles? And why you think the infobox is neccessary? - Jay 12:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Why not you just rest your case and move on… continue with your editing or daily work. We have ours too." - that looks like a textbook case of ownership. Andy Mabbett 14:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First, Kleinzach, I've asked you to stop making personal attacks about me. What ever happened to "assume good faith"? Your comments are causing me a great deal of stress. Why have you not responded to any of my attempts on your talk page to resolve this? I try to be transparent, I try to appeal to people of both audiences, and I try to reconcile by removing one of the notices; what more could you want? Again, I feel like you're making a public spectacle of me, and it really bothers me. This is is the last time that I will ask you to stop.

Anyway, I'm going to drop it all. This is not important enough to make such a fuss about it or to be the subject of personal attacks. I'd rather just go back to my beloved Bartok. I'd like to archive everything concerning infoboxes to an "Infoboxes discussion" section, if that is alright with other editors. It is now apparent to me that there is vast consensus among the WikiProject not to use them. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read all my comments on this page and I can't find any instance of a personal attack. I see you, Cielomobile, signed onto the Opera Project a day before you annotated the section about infoboxes on the project page. Do you intend to contribute to articles on opera? This has been an unnecessary disruption. I hope it's at an end.

Regarding archiving, please leave the discussions alone. They will be archived exactly as they are now with no retrospective editing, re-arranging, new headings or whatever. Basta! -- Kleinzach 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do intend on contributing to articles related to opera, though I am not sure how much I will work with this project in the future, because of the general hostility and accusations of bad faith with which I have been met. I created the stub A Flowering Tree long before joining the project, and I have been editing articles related to classical music for quite some time now (see homophony for instance, which is also related to opera—I detailed all this earlier in response to a comment made by Jay). Regarding personal attacks, I was probably taking this too harshly (tone can be lost in text), but the repeated accusations of forum shopping (which is bad faith editing) felt like personal attacks to me, even if you did not intend them as such (I doubt that people very often intend on making personal attacks when they do). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has been general hostility towards you personally. Some (not all) of the responses may have been brusque and reflected annoyance at the disruption caused by all this, for which I think you have to take some responsibility. Normally, when joining a project, it's a good idea to 'hang around' on the talk page for a couple of weeks to get a feeling for the dynamics of the group, and to read the archives carefully to see what the background is to many of the discussions. Had you done so, you would have seen that amendments are only made to the front page after first proposing them on the talk page. You would also have seen that the issue of infoboxes has been discussed a lot, and that there was not only a consensus about it here, but that several other Projects (unrelated to Opera) were also against them, and there was a feeling here that this subject could definitely use a rest after the previous marathon - archived only a couple of weeks ago.

As for the accusations of bad faith, 'accusation' is a two way street that's best to avoid. If you wanted to open the issue again, it would have been better to write a reasoned rationale for infoboxes being positively beneficial to opera articles rather than detrimental instead of simply stating that we should use them because the Biography Project wants them. When you start off stating on the talk page that this project's (and by clear implication its members) opposition to infoboxes is "arrogant" and involves issues of "ownership", it's not surprising that people react (and sometimes over-react) to that.

While "mass canvassing" is perhaps too strong a term (and one which I never used), it is nevertheless the case that you started a poll and then contacted groups with a combined total of over 300 members who are on the whole known to favour your point of view, and far fewer ones which did not. I think you can see how many people here might have considered it 'forum shopping', which is not so much bad faith as an issue of etiquette. True, you retracted the messages to those groups and tried to even things out once the imbalance was pointed out to you, but, I think it would have been courteous to the project as a whole, to discuss your plan for a straw poll (and your intentions to announce it on several other projects) here on this talk page before you embarked on it. An after-the-fact message on the talk page of one member of the project, isn't really adequate.

Anyhow, chalk it up to experience in group dynamics. No one here is going to hold it against you, and it least it's in black and white what the Opera Project's current consensus is about infoboxes, and our reasons for it. So the whole thing did shed some light in addition to heat. ;-) Best, Voceditenore 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no current consensus . Andy Mabbett 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If Andy Mabbett does not agree, there must, of course, be no consensus. On anything. Moreschi ^Talk 16:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is disengenious, if not downright dishonest. I have previously listed around a dozen people who have spoken out against the claimed consensus. Andy Mabbett 21:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If I've been unclear, my apologies, Mr. Mabbett. I was referring to the Opera Project's current consensus, not to a Wikipedia-wide consensus. I would have thought that was pretty obvious, but nevermind, I have amended my comment above to avoid confusion. Voceditenore 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Up to this point I have not ventured an opinion on info-boxes at all but I have been watching the argument closely. Mr. Mabbett at this point I think you should recognize that the Opera Wikipedia project has pretty much decided against your proposal and I hope you will graciously accept their rejection of your ideas. We thank you for bringing this issue to our attention but I believe I speak for this particular group within wikipedia by saying we do not choose to adopt your suggestions. In other words, please be respectful enough of our viewpoint to no longer raise the issue again. We have decided as a group that we are not going to adopt info boxes in general. In the future, Mr. Mabbett, I think you would do better to win people over to your way of thinking by providing solutions to the problems they see in your proposal, instead of being condescending to their criticisms. Wikipedia is a community of people that make decisions together. In this case the community is not with you. As to my own opinions on info-boxes, I think for the most part they are not necessary for the same reasons listed by group members earlier. I am also very concerned about misinformation presented in the info-boxes. However, I do think all of the problems mentioned are fixable. Misinformation can always be edited to good information and redundant information can be deleted from the article. If an infobox within an article is done well I see no reason to delete it. I do think that info boxes could be helpful in some of the larger articles, especially ones dealing with more well known singers like Pavarotti. But ultimately, info boxes are not a necessity simply because the articles themselves can contain any of the information held within an info box. I do think the group should allow info boxes on pages shared with the Wiki Biography Project and other projects that like info-boxes simply in the spirit of cooperation and friendship. In those cases, however, I think we should adopt Kyoko’s suggestion of using an opera specific info box in order to avoid misinformation. Also if someone, in the group wants to create an info box and does it with integrity, I see no reason to delete it either. i just don't think we should make them a requirement. In this way, we avoid the hassle of info boxes on most of our pages while maintaining good relations with other projects.Nrswanson 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that where the main contributors to an article on an opera singer want the box, the box should be fixed (if necessary) not removed (unless there's something hideously broken): WP:WPBIO is more of a meta-project than anything else; really not a hands-on write-the-articles WikiProject, so I'm not sure how that project is relevant (I still can't work out why it exists, but that's a different discussion); with other overlapping projects that like boxes, I agree there should be reasoned discussion. Moreschi ^Talk 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote earlier that I wanted to drop this, so I'm not going to argue it anymore (and I did give my rationale for infoboxes at some point; it has to do with infoboxes being easier to read than prose, but I will not go into detail again). However, if I create an opera-specific infobox that does not have to be used unless an article's contributors want it used, would one of you propose its deletion (I would just move the infobox in my userspace to the template space)? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

This infobox war is starting to get out of hand. This is probably one of the lamest edit wars I've seen and should really be listed in WP:LAME. Whilst we are all hurling insults, accusations and 100 WP:DOCTRINE links, has anyone noticed that nothing is being accomplished. This argument isn't about content. No matter whether infoboxes are included or not, the article is NOT improved because nobody is adding any new content. My view is that no one has the right to dictate whether infoboxes stay or are removed if they're not willing to actually add something meaningful to an article.

If anyone is accusing me of ownership - well, I'm afraid this is where I totally disagree with WP's policy. Any major contributor to an article should have more rights to the format and layout of the article than some fly by editor who's only intention is to do a half minute rating and then tag an article Start or an obsessive microformatter who has no interest in the content of an article, merely that it has all the latest template transclusions.

My suggestion is that all these people who want people to agree with their views should first prove that they are actually interested in more than just a small coloured box in the top right of an article and actually the content of the article itself. Do some copyeditting, find some references. Anything...just stop engaging in a pointless exercise over an infobox. Centy – – 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's just archive this whole debate and get on with editing. --Folantin 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! Although I would like your opinions on my suggestion given above. Nrswanson 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, enough. No new arguments are being brought to the table here. All the previous ones are available on this page, at WikiProject:Composers, the various article talk pages and WP:ANI. Please read them first and after that marathon perhaps you'll understand why most editors are thoroughly sick of the issue. Best. --Folantin 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as a general rule, kill the boxes; where they are particularly wanted by the main contributor(s) to an article, make sure the box contains nothing confusing. Moreschi ^Talk 18:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: as per Moreschi - Voceditenore 19:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shall we archive these discussions sometime soon so we go can draw a line and move on? Centy – – 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The sooner the better. (Apologies to any newcomers who've joined the debate, but what you are detecting is immense weariness rather than hostility). --Folantin 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to turn current Wikipedia policy on its head, as proposed by 'CenturionZ 1', then WP:VP would be a good place to start; until you achieve that, policy remains as it is and ownership is not allowed. Andy Mabbett 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)