Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:22, 21 June 2007

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 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!

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 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 • Archive 31 • Archive 32

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well that is the key piece of evidence to show that we have an encyclopedic article rather than an article nased on a promotional biography from her website. --Peter cohen 11:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal:Moratorium on infobox discussions for 6 months

I propose we have a ~~formal~~ moratorium on all discussions about infoboxes at this project, for a period of at least six months from today's date (21 June 2007) to be noted on the project page (section 15). Please agree or disagree. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC) / Revised --Kleinzach 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work by running votes to silence others and deny the opinions of those who don't agree with the loudest voices. Andy Mabbett 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic you should be talking about "loudest voices", Mabbett. As far as I can see, the "loudest voice" trying to impose his dogma here is you. "Deny the opinions of others" is perfect description of what you have done over the last few weeks. Moreschi ^Talk 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, in case you are wondering where I was referring to where I say I get irritated by your contrinutions, this is the main place. --Peter cohen 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the proposal and also, I would like to "propose" for Andy Mabbett to quit with his useless debate in here unless he has something beneficial for Opera Project. What, you want to call this "ownership"? I don’t see any constructive opinion from you other than criticizing people. - Jay 01:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not bring it up again and will advise others not to do so, but you can't really stop someone from bringing it up if he or she wants to. I would agree with an informal moratorium on the subject, but a "formal" one seems a little odd and unenforceable to me. What if someone brings it up again? Will you just tell them "NOT ALLOWED FOR DISCUSSION"? I would just point to the past discussion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cielomobile, the use of 'formal is odd and unenforceable. It also 'looks' bad. I'd heartily agree to an informal one, though. If someone brings it up, we can just say we're taking a rest on that issue for a while and point them to the appropriate archive. Best, Voceditenore 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An informal moratorium is fine. In the same way it's generally considered a bad idea to keep nominating an article you dislike for deletion, I think those who want infoboxes should give it a rest for several months. We've established there really is a general feeling against the use of infoboxes on opera articles at the moment. We've discussed this issue to death over the past two months or so and no new arguments have been brought forward. Any newcomers who inadvertently raise this subject again can be referred to the previous debates and told we're not really interested in discussing the matter in the immediate future. --Folantin 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the word 'formal' above to the proposal above to mean that the moratorium if agreed would be noted on the project page under Infoboxes (Section 15). An informal moratorium - if that means saying Hey we discussed it last month, it's in Archive 26, sorry no Archive 28! - is not going to work. Each editor who has tried to re-ignite the issue in the past has simply brushed that aside. -- Kleinzach 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As long as it's phrased in a 'friendly' (for want of a better word) way, I think it's reasonable to note it on the project page. But I would avoid the use of 'formal' in the actual note. Frankly, a determined infoboxer would still brush aside the project page notice, and in addition could then come in firing with both barrels concerning censorship, debate stifling etc. Why provide the ammo? Best, Voceditenore 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Voce. A friendly notice to avoid further edit warring would be fine. We can refer interested newcomers to that and to the archives. Otherwise, as I've said above, it's generally regarded as disruptive to reignite debates again and again until you get your way. In such cases, we would have the "moral highground". --Folantin 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we are in agreement. I didn't intend anything different. (Not as if we have to wear suits or anything. . . .) I have amended the proposal above to make it clearer. Please confirm it's OK now. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, and I like Moreschi's wording maybe slightly rephrased to: We're all a bit tired of discussing this issue right now, so before you bring it up, you really might like to check the archives here. And here. And here. Best, Voceditenore 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just stick a "Thank you" on the end to make it extra-friendly. --Folantin 10:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a brief note saying, "We're all a bit tired of this right now, so you really might like, before you bring this up, to check the archives here. And here. And here. And here." Informal, formal can't really work. Moreschi ^Talk 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fine by me. --GuillaumeTell 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added the proposed note to the project page with all the relevant archived discussion I could find. I didn't add the debates from the individual article pages, but anybody who hasn't had their fill of reading about this discussion after ploughing through the links provided is clearly insane. --Folantin 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the note needs a time reference, without that I'm afraid it will be ineffective. -- Kleinzach 11:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't enforce a specific date, but it might be OK if we added "Ideally, it would be best not to raise the topic again for at least another six months (date of writing: late June, 2007)". --Folantin 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the point. Date the note. Date the moratorium. -- Kleinzach 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to date it as "June" rather than "June 21". Otherwise, by my calculation, we look like we're offering an invitation to restart the debate on December 21, right before Christmas. I don't think I could take it at that time of the year! Cheers. --Folantin 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we tell any new editors who want to discuss infoboxes to drop the issue as we have reached a consensus to stop all discussions (in a friendly manner of course). (Andy: Your lone voice of I want the issue to continue does not constitute no consensus). If Andy does come back and try to force his views down our throats then we'll just ignore him. The guy's so deep in his own little microformat world that I've decided he's a lost cause to argue with. Not only that he doesn't realise he's pretty much argued our case for us. (Censorship, ownership - more applicable to his attitude to this matter then ours.) Centy – reply• contribs – 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) "Each editor who has tried to re-ignite the issue in the past "... adds further evidence that there is no consensus (and disproves the dishonest claim that I'm a "lone voice" in this regard). Please feel free, if you can, to also post evidence to back up your further dishonest claim that I have tried to censor anyone's view on Infoboxes. Andy Mabbett 13:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People, ignore. Moreschi ^Talk 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing an editor, with whom you disagree, as a troll is not accepatabe. I'd be surprised you don't know that already. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing an editor with your singularly infamous history of disruption as a troll, on the other hand...Moreschi ^Talk 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your resort to ad hominem suggests that you have no stronger argument to propound; you know there is no consensus and are trying to create a smoke-screen. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moreschi, although I'd just note as a point of comparison, for those unfamiliar with Andy Mabbett's unique debating style, it's worth checking out this discussion [1] where he himself actually wants a box removed from a page. --Folantin 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A box which contains a palpable lie. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ::Dismissing an editor, with whom you disagree, as a troll is not accepatabe. I'd be surprised you don't know that already. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::Dismissing an editor with your singularly infamous history of disruption as a troll, on the other hand...[[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
+::::Your resort to ad hominem suggests that you have no stronger argument to propound; you know there is no consensus and are trying to create a smoke-screen. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::Agree with Moreschi, although I'd just note as a point of comparison, for those unfamiliar with Andy Mabbett's unique debating style, it's worth checking out this discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Coord/doc#Bogus_warning] where he himself actually wants a box removed from a page. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
+:::A box which contains a palpable lie. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)