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 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)

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 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)

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)

This has got nothing to do with ownership. There is no rule against individual projects coming up with style guidelines for articles that (roughly) fall within their scope: indeed, this is common practice. For the last couple weeks, this has been all about your ridiculous trolling. Moreschi ^Talk 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I advise that you just drop the issue, Andy, as I have. It's not important. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, I have now archived this discussion except for this final section which I will also be archiving afterwards. -- Kleinzach 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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). Please agree or disagree. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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)