Talk:Vienna State Opera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wow, this article says a lot about Mahler but little about all these other illustrious characters. It's going to take a group effort to fix this, I think. Dunkelweizen 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an intention to translate parts of the German article. -- Kleinzach 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I can help with that. Dunkelweizen 12:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Far too much attention on the current and last season. This isn't a press release or 'recent opera history' archive. Instead it should focus on the subject matter. For example the orchestral body. How many players? How many performances every year? How is it organized? Etc. runenaljoss

I don't think there is any such account as runenaljoss. Please sign on properly (see top right). As for your point about 'the current and last season', I agree. It's needs editing. If you have the necessary knowledge, why not have a go? --Kleinzach 05:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "propectus" statements[edit]

User:Kleinzach: "world famous", "finest in the world" "prestigious" etc. are usually not objective statements, and are very ofeten found in self-promotion material. I am not saying that the Wiener Philharmoniker (and the staatsoper) is not one of the best orchestras - probably the best? - (and opera companies) , but this is not a neutral statement as it is judgement of value of the Orchestra (which probably doesn't even need it, but that's not the point). If you feel so strongly about making such a subjective statements, at least provide a reputable and verifiable source and idicate who and why think it is one of the best opera companies and the Wiener is prestigious. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias should not include judgements and statements so subjective. I am marking them again as lacking sources until good sources are posted. I hope you agree. Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO you are using the wrong editing method here. We use 'fact' tags to indicate when a dubious statement/fact needs corroboration. If you feel the language here is un-encyclopedic, it's better to use some kind of cleanup tag such as the 'advert' tag. There is a list of tags at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. I'll have a look at the wording here and see if it can be improved. --Kleinzach 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, User:Kleinzach! --Karljoos (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Commemorative coin section[edit]

Is this relevant to the article? What do people think? --Kleinzach 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, if the Austrian government decided to issue a commemorative coin to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the re-opening of the opera house, it is an important event and does give an idea of its magnitude from a different angle. Hence I do vote for keeping it. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but is it relevant here. Perhaps it belongs in a commemorative coin article, no? --Kleinzach 02:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
It is wiki-linked to an Austrian coins article, but this particular coin is about this particular building, that is why is 'also' here. What do you propose? You want to remove the text and leave the image only? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd remove both to the Austrian coins article, but I'd like to hear from other editors. --Kleinzach 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
To that I would disagree, it does show the important of the buildign from a completely different angle, and it does not harm the article at all, it is a small paragraph in the "see aslo" section. Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Better image?[edit]

Previous image
DE Wikipedia

Do other editors agree that this edit introduced a better image? It doesn't show the front entrance and with its cluttered foreground it's a lot worse than the previous image. If the previous image should be replaced, I'd prefer the lead image from the German Wikipedia article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)