Talk:Ariane et Barbe-bleue

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New recording 2007

FYI, there is a new recording. Dukas: Ariane et Barbe-Bleue [BOX SET] Leon Botstein (Conductor), BBC Symphony Orchestra (Orchestra), Lori Phillips (Performer), Peter Rose (Performer), Patricia Bardon (Performer)[1] Benjiboi 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

Two different scales are linked. The first says: "[B-class] Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Such articles should be neutral and devoid of original research. If free images are used, this is a bonus. B-class articles on operas should contain a full plot synopsis, a decent level of contextual analysis including relation to other works of the same period, and a full roles table containing the names of original performers, where available. The articles is referenced to reliable sources (such as Grove), possibly using inline citations." There is nothing about images being obligatory. The article as it stands does contain information regarding its "relation to other works of the same period". I don't see how C-class ("Significant editing is still needed to close gaps in coverage or correct policy errors. Some parts may need to be substantially reworded, and editors will need to find more references for many existing sections") applies here. This is just another good example why assessments do not work.--Folantin (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time now to write a detailed assessment now but I will tommorow. I stand by my C assessment and you will see why in my lengthy evaluation tommorow. Also, the assessment scale needs revamping, particularly since we really haven't changed things to incorporate C-class. (Klienzach threw something together without discussig it) Further, the assessment scales that are more important are the scales at the bottom and not the color coded system as the point scales are article type specific. Also as the primary author of the article, Folantin, you really shouldn't be rating it anyway.Nrswanson (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have strong objections to the assessment scheme as it is. This merely confirms my suspicions that it is totally subjective. I've looked at the available material on this opera and there is some more information that could be added but not very much more (without going into highly scholarly detail). Therefore I rated it "B" rather than "A", following the system adopted by Antandrus. --Folantin (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent it is subjective since individuals have to do the actual rating. On the other hand, point systems provide a consistant framework for everyone to work in. Some reviewers might be more critical than others though. The whole point of assessment in my view is to highlight areas within an article that can be improved and not to award badges to editors/articles. I suggest you wait for my full evaluation and try to benefit from it rather than complain about it. I hope it will help the editing process by pointing out ways we can make this article better.Nrswanson (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make the article better, please don't give me your "evaluation", go out and find some more information about this obscure opera. I had to provide my own synopsis by carefully going through the libretto rather than ripping off someone else's plot summary. --Folantin (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find other people's eyes and opinions on articles I have contributed to be helpful. Also, the evaluation is not for you but for everyone who might want to contribute to this article. You might not see the value but the general wikipedia community would not agree. If you are not interested in feedback from others I suggest you simply ignore assessment all together. What is pointless is for someone to write an article and then assess the article themselves without objective outside criticism.Nrswanson (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know about the subject at hand I'm not sure you can rate it properly. For instance, in the article on Le diable dans le beffroi it clearly states "[Debussy] planned to make the chorus the only singing part and have the devil of the title whistle", which is about all we can say as far as "roles" are concerned since all that survives of the opera are three pages of textless musical sketches - yet you criticised it for its lack of a "role table". This seems to me like criteria are being mechanically applied. "the evaluation is not for you but for everyone who might want to contribute to this article." Anybody who has anything to add to this article will do it. If I come across an article on a subject I know a lot about then I can see what's missing myself. --Folantin (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I know quite a lot about Ariane et Barbe-bleue since I've actually performed it. But you obviously are content to remain hostile so I am not going to continue this conversation.Nrswanson (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. I'd be more impressed if you actually added the information you have. --Folantin (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a score which may have some content in it that I could add. However, I have about a dozen other articles in progress so it may be some time before I have time. Also what I know and what I can verify are two different things. I mean I can't just give my own analysis of the music but the analysis of someone else who has been published. Finding sources takes time but they do exist. This article really needs a discussion of the music in order to be rated B class. Some images would be good as well.Nrswanson (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"what I know and what I can verify are two different things" . Well that's a general Wikipedia problem called no original research, so it's irrelevant to the assessment. You also have to watch you don't violate copyright. Facts are free, but quoting someone else's opinions at length usually comes with a price tag. "This article really needs a discussion of the music". I would think that would push it up to "A" class on any sensible system. On the other hand, I would rather not have an assessment system at all. We managed perfectly well without one. The absurd "points table" turns this into a version of Top Trumps. --Folantin (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comment would imply that I was aware of the no OR policy. Also, I think you would know that a seasoned editor like myself would be careful to not violate copywright policies. As for an example of an assessment that helped me, take a look at magicpiano's assessment of Thomas Arne which I am the primary author of. I found it very helpful with some of the small things like improving the lead.Nrswanson (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever found any assessment much use to me. Generally, the reviewer doesn't appear to have read the article (e.g. Le diable) or understand the subject. Also, I'd say when I have offered criticism of an article - unless it's been a matter of glaring policy violation (NPOV etc.) - then I have tried to put my money where my mouth is and get stuck in improving it (a very early example) rather than subjecting it to the grill of some assessment scheme and laying down the law from on high. --Folantin (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009: Constant changes to English transaltion of Ariane

I have posted the following on User talk:82.123.252.236's discussion page:

As an unregistered editor on Wikipedia you may not be aware of some of trhe protocols which need to be followed.

Firstly, you are engaging in "edit wars": that means constant reversions of changes to your original alteration of the English title of this opera.

Secondly, and more importantly, you have not justified on the article's "Talk page" the reason for your change, nor have you cited authoratastiuve sources for your change.

Consulting just one reliable source - in this case The New Penguin Opera Guide edited by Amanda Holden, I see that the English translation of Ariane is shown as "Ariadne".

PLEASE DO NOT CONTINUE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, OR YOU MAY BE BANNED FROM EDITING BECAUSE OF WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE "VANDALISM". Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, he/she does not know the protocol, so before we continue these edit wars, let's weigh in on this editor. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]