User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 2
|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 REPLY from Hkchan123
- 2 Opera Project
- 3 Premiere vs. première
- 4 Sullivan Opera
- 5 Oberto now a disambiguation page
- 6 Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera category
- 7 User Silence breaking Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
- 8 Opera festivals
- 9 Spoiler alert v. Opera
- 10 Alex Bakharev
- 11 Tantris
- 12 Meladina's Russian opera articles (April 2006)
- 13 Italian capitalization
- 14 Opera buffa vs Comic opera
- 15 Handel Vandal
REPLY from Hkchan123
oh, certainly. move it as you like :) !! Thank you for your appreciation :). Chinese wiki doesn't have much article about Opera, I think I may try to translate some others in the future.
In fact, I am not a opera lover... It just happened that I have the L'italiana in Algeri live record music file, I want to know about the story, so I translate it before I listen to it :p
Oh.... you used to live here 8) !! Hope you like HongKong :D !!
--Hkchan123 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
oh.....feel free to delete this msg after reading LOL... --Hkchan123 09:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have some problem translating the story of Don Carlos,
would you mind explain a bit?
I have put my question here
Thank you. :)
Thanks for the Welcome! I thought I'd start off with W.S. Gilbert, mainly because, well, his article was full of little snide comments on how awful he was which really have no place somewhere like this, so... Well, someone had to do it, I'm surrounded by resources, It probably should be me. To be honest, I don't expect to be leaving Gilbert and/or Sullivan for some time, except to fill in on their major collaborators. It's a much larger field than people think - for one thing, Gilbert wrote over a hundred plays and operettas, not even counting his short stories and articles, and Sullivan, though there's only so much you can talk about an instrumental work, has enough to cover a few months of work. Ach, well! Could be worse. Could be doing Rossini: At least I have a fairly easy job tracking things down. Adam Cuerden 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering what you think should be the genre of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. An earlier editor had fairly consistently described each one as a "comic Gilbert and Sullivan operetta." Now, Gilbert and Sullivan themselves never used the word "operetta" in connection with their works. Neither did their contemporaries. They were always described as some species of opera ("comic opera," "fairy opera," "nautical opera," "Japanese opera," or just "opera"). Gilbert's collected editions of his operas call them "comic operas" or just "operas."
I am, of course, aware that the various genres of opera have a good deal of overlap, and that every definition will be disputed by somebody. There are also some tough-to-categorize pieces. (Wagner called Parsifal a "stage consecration festival play," a genre that apparently has no other entrants.)
But I do think it's wrong to impose on Gilbert and Sullivan a label (operetta) that the creators never used, when the label they did use (comic opera) is still available and serves the purpose reasonably well. The current Wikipedia article on comic opera claims that Gilbert and Sullivan is "English operetta," not comic opera. I have left it alone for now, but I am not persuaded that this is so.
Anyhow, as you seem to be the moving force behind the WP opera project, I thought I'd ask your view. Marc Shepherd 14:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response on my user page. I wouldn't object to calling them consistently "Savoy Operas," since the creators themselves were apparently satisfied with that phrase. I'm happy to help when you get around to revising the Wikipedia opera genres. I do think there's a difference between categories like "comic opera" and "opera buffa," which have long pedigrees, and hypothetical examples like "short opera" or "boring opera," which do not.
- In the meantime, let me say you're doing a great job coordinating this massive project. Marc Shepherd 09:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
--Hkchan123 14:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Premiere vs. première
Any thoughts on whether "premiere" should have a grave accent on the second 'e'? I've seen both forms on WP, and sometimes on the same page. For instance, the La Boheme page uses the accented word to refer to the Puccini opera, but the unaccented word to refer to the Leoncavallo opera.
- Well, it is a bit difficult to reply to you if I don't know your name!
- The jury is still out on premiere vs. première. I don't put an accent but I think it's half and half.
- Re La bohème. It's La bohème. That's the style we follow. Please see The Opera Project page (and notes about redirects from other versions).
- Kleinzach 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've started work on one of Sullivan's operas (Contrabandista/Chieftain), which went extensive revisions much later. Could you possibly link me to that template I should emulate again? I'm afraid it's very basic at the moment, but I nearly lost the song list and had to fight the computer for two hours to keep it. Such things put you off your stride. Adam Cuerden 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Oberto now a disambiguation page
Well spotted, Kleinzach!
I was in the process (now complete) of creating a disambiguation page for Oberto, since it the name also refers to a tenth-century ruler of part of north west Italy. (Not the Oberto of Verdi’s opera). It took a while since I did the move then worked through fixing the double redirects before changing the Oberto from redirection to disambiguation. (I believe that I have fixed all the redirects, with the exception of one on a watchlist which I left for obvious reasons.)
The reason I created a disambiguation page, rather than sticking an otheruses sentence at the top of the existing one, was that there is an alternative spelling Otbert which refers to the ruler (and to his son, Oberto Secondo), but not to the opera. Redirecting Otbert to a proper disambiguation page, rather than to a page about the opera seemd to make a lot more sense.
I hope that does make sense! By the way, I have never heard Oberto. Should I?
Cheers Ian Spackman 11:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera category
Hi. I see you have changed the categorization of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. I am a bit puzzled by this. Opera is listed (in my view appropriately) under Performing Arts - not music or theatre. I wonder if you were aware of this? If you look at the Opera Project page in detail you will see that this is explained. Thanks. - Kleinzach 08:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is currently no category for "performing arts" WikiProjects, and according to Wikipedia itself, opera is both a form of music and a form of theatre. Also, re-adding Category:WikiProjects to that WikiProject has nothing to do with "performing arts" (so I don't understand how your above comment at all relates to the actual revert you made); you are apparently unaware that Category:WikiProjects is currently in the process of being depopulated of all individual WikiProjects to make navigation easier. They are instead being moved to subcategories, like "Music WikiProjects" and "WikiProject Theatre" in this case. -Silence 08:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please see []. If you are interested in re-structuring the categories then it will be necessary to make one for Performing Arts. Theatre is not a substitute for this. It doesn't mean the same thing, and there are various other problems (as you will see if you look more closely at the Theatre Project).
- Moreover, opera is not a form of music! It has many extra-musical features. This is a complex subject and I think it would have been much better if you had posted on the Project Opera Talk page before you went ahead and made changes. You are evidently well-informed about categorization, but it's also necessary to understand the subject matter properly. If you had read the project page itself we could have cooperated in improving the structure. I see from this page that you have had friction with other contributors to other projects before by making arbitrary changes.
- Anyway the way forward would be to move Opera to a Performing Arts group. Friendly regards. - Kleinzach 09:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- "Please see []." - I already have. I fail to see how that listing choice in any way supports your claims. I am deeply unimpressed, if that's all you had to show me. Clearly you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's categorization system, else you'd realize that unlike a simple hierarchial system like the one at that page, categories allow an article to be subgrouped under more than one category! "Comic books" can be categorized under both "Visual art" and "Books"; they are not mutually exclusive (just the opposite). Plus a lot of the organizational choices currently in use on the WikiProjects page are just plain stupid ("Food and drink" is a "hobby"? Gee, if I'd known that I wouldn't indulge in that hobby so regularly); maybe I'll work on changing that at some point in the future.
- "If you are interested in re-structuring the categories" - I'm not. The previous system of categorization was horribly inefficient, inconsistent, and disorganized, to the point of being nearly useless, and users had requested that the categories be cleaned up, so I'm spending a few hours to do the long-overdue dirty work. I find it dull and unrewarding, but it needs doing.
- "then it will be necessary to make one for Performing Arts." - If you want to make one, then make one. Nobody's stopping you, and it only takes about 30 seconds. The main reason I could see for making such a category would be to have somewhere to put projects like "WikiProject Dance", since unlike "opera", dance doesn't fit under "theatre".
- "It doesn't mean the same thing, and there are various other problems (as you will see if you look more closely at the Theatre Project)." - You keep making vague references to obscure areas of various WikiProjects, and consistently fail to provide any examples on any of these WikiProject pages that actually support your claims. Since you know where all this hidden, revelatory information is, why don't you just give it to me rather than trying to convince me with mere allusions to it?
- "Moreover, opera is not a form of music!" - Wrong. :) Read 'em and weep.
- "It has many extra-musical features." - ... And? Is that all? That's your argument? The fact that something isn't just music doesn't mean that it's not music at all! Opera is both music and other things, because it has musical aspects; that is why it needs to be categorized under Category:Music WikiProjects, just as a Musicals WikiProject would, despite having "extra-musical features". If something is both X and Y, the fact that it is Y does not make it not-X, it makes it both at the same time.
- "This is a complex subject and I think it would have been much better if you had posted on the Project Opera Talk page before you went ahead and made changes." - Oh, surely you jest. You want me to have posted messages to the hundreds of WikiProjects before making any of the recategorizations that were required for every single one of them! That demand would be beyond unreasonable, even were it possible. What's so sinful and terrible about discussing these issues after they come up, rather than asusming that they always will beforehand? Silly, silly, silly.
- "You are evidently well-informed about categorization, but it's also necessary to understand the subject matter properly." - I agree. That's why I took the time to research opera a little before making the categorizations I selected, based on Category:Opera's overcategories, the definitions of opera, theatre and music, and the existing categorization scheme in place. I also happen to be a moderate opera fanatic, relatively speaking; your insinuations about my ignorance of the subject matter are thus quite baseless (though I'm sure I'm not a master on the subject like yourself). This is not an issue of one person knowing vastly more than the other—it's an issue of stylistic disagreement. If you disagree with the option I selected, say so and explain why; replacing "theatre" with "performing arts" is understandable (though both are equally accurate where opera is concerned, unlike the situation with some other art forms, like dance), but you have yet to justify the removal of Category:Music WikiProjects, nor what you would propose replacing it with. I'd love to hear your rationale for why opera isn't musical, considering that music is one of the defining characteristics of all opera. :)
- "If you had read the project page itself we could have cooperated in improving the structure." - I already did read most of the project page itself, when I made the recategorizations in question, even though I did dozens of other category moves at the same time. And we still can cooperate in improving the structure, obviously; I thought that was why you came to talk to me!, but it seems you're saying that you instead came to point fingers and complain. :/
- "I see from this page that you have had friction with other contributors to other projects before by making arbitrary changes." - But you very clearly didn't actually read the discussions in question. If you had, you'd have seen that the only comment from a user who was actually involved in the Categories endeavor (rather than peripherally half-seeing the categories) was very complimentary, and that every single one of the category changes I made that someone came to ask me about on this Talk page has thus far turned out to be completely justified: the only two other editors to say anything here were Nihonjoe, whose ignorance of WP:ASR conventions led to the confusion in question, and Jessamyn, who has yet to explain why books and libraries are such profoundly unrelated subjects :). I do expect an apology for your calling my changes "arbitrary" at some point in the future (could anything be further from the truth?), when you've calmed down; afterwards, we can hopefully discuss the matter reasonably. I'd enjoy that quite a bit more than exchanging attacks and insinuations with you, but that seems to be all you're interested in at the moment. :/ -10:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll read this later. Obviously you have a major agenda that goes far beyond the innocent subject of categorization. - Kleinzach 10:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, then revise your response. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you're just having a bad day. I greatly look forward to an insightful, calm, and civil discussion of the issues involved upon your return; I trust that you comments thus far have been an unfortunate fluke. Seeya later! -Silence 10:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have time to play games. I will however make a Performing Arts category which I hope satisfies the substance of your argument. - Kleinzach 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Neither one of us is here to play games. But one of us is here to battle, and the other is not. When you put down your sword, I'll gladly discuss the matter with you in a civil and open-minded way that will surely satisfy both parties involved in the end. So, as I said: see you then! And have a nice day. :) -Silence 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes indeed! Have a nice day! - Kleinzach 12:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
User Silence breaking Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
You have broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule by continually changing the category of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, a project to which you are not contributing. I don't understand why you doing this. Why is the categorization of this subject of such importance to you? Why don't you leave it to the people who working on the project? Why interfere? - Kleinzach 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, you are incorrect. This edit, the one to which you are referring, is only my first revert to that specific version of the page; my previous edit, here, was specifically done to please you, because you had demanded that I go to the trouble of creating a new category just to satisfy your unjustified whims, even though opera is obviously a form of theatre and performing arts, which is why Wikipedia has it categorized under Category:Theatrical genres. That edit, obviously, was not a revert, and in fact did not change anything from your previous version, but rather altered the previous edit I'd made to suit your fancy. The edit before that was a revert, but to a different version of the page, and it was the only other revert I've ever made to that page. In both cases, your version was clearly in error, completely unjustified, and served no purpose other than to inconvenience users who might be interested in the Opera WikiProject by allowing them to find the Project by fewer methods; accusing me of breaking WP:3RR when I've clearly only made two reverts comes across as nothing but a rhetorical tactic designed to scare me away from a page, which is especially poor conduct considering what a trivial and simple disagreement you are attacking me over. Your consistently shrill, aggressive, uncivil, inflammatory, completely lacking in good faith, and overall hate-filled responses to my good-faith attempts to be of help by applying consistently the categorization scheme that already exists on Wikipedia are unacceptable. I strongly advise you to behave in a more civil and calm manner in this discussion, to read and response to my previous post (to which you have thus far only replied with "I'll read this later. Obviously you have a major agenda that goes far beyond the innocent subject of categorization."), and to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a page of fundamental importance in interacting with your fellow editors on Wikipedia. -Silence 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- So what's your problem? Why not leave opera in the performing arts category? That satisfies your intention of removing projects from the top level just fine. - Kleinzach 09:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did leave opera in the performing arts category. That isn't the problem; the problem is your unjustified removal of "opera" from the "music" category, even though the definition of "opera" is:
- A theatrical presentation in which a dramatic performance is set to music.
- And my intention is not "removing projects from the top level", it's providing users with an easy-to-navigate, user-friendly, accessible, consistent category system. Removing projects from the "top level" (which was completed yesterday, see Category:WikiProjects) is just one of several things to help further that goal. -Silence 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did leave opera in the performing arts category. That isn't the problem; the problem is your unjustified removal of "opera" from the "music" category, even though the definition of "opera" is:
- Opera involves much more than simply music. There is also design, spectacle, dance, poetry, drama etc. It's a mixed media art form. That is why it belongs under the Performing Arts and not as a sub-category of music. - Kleinzach 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Re-categorization is a job for an expert
Vigilante-style re-categorization just makes the structure of Wikipedia even more of a mess than it was before. You should leave this work to admin who have a better sense of how to build the encyclopedia. People have written books about classification systems. It's not such an easy thing to make one properly without creating anomalies and contradictions. This is something I've studied a little and knowing the problems involved I wouldn't attempt, by myself alone, to re-organize Wikipedia. - Kleinzach 09:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Accusing fellow editors of "vigilante" action is not acceptable, and clearly contradicts (as does your entire comment) the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages.
- Your accusation that the categorization system "more of a mess than it was before" is also unjustified; you have yet to provide even a single example of how any aspect of the WikiProject categories is messier than they previously were. Your argument is pure rhetoric, an insubstantial personal attack. I encourage you to provide real examples of how the categories or WikiProjects are worse off than they were before, rather than just making unsubstantiated, vitriolic claims. The former would allow us to actually correct any mistakes that have occurred, whereas the latter is just empty spite.
- "You should leave this work to admin who have a better sense of how to build the encyclopedia." - Again, please review WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA—or at least say what admin you have in mind. :P The simple fact of the matter is that this reorganization has been under request for over eight months, and not a single user has stepped forward until now to do the much-needed dirty work. If I hadn't stayed up for two nights straight to get the job done, it very likely never would have been done, and the WikiProjects categories might have just eventually collapsed under their own weight. If you have a specific and actionable criticism regarding the reorganization I implemented, then just say it, and I'll respond accordingly; but your continued attacks on my credibility and editing ability are as offensive as they are useless, and will continue to ring hollow as long as you avoid providing any substantial criticisms.
- "People have written books about classification systems." - And none of those people edit Wikipedia. :) People have written books about opera; does that mean that it's unacceptable for you to try to edit any opera-related article on Wikipedia? Of course not. You're just being silly now.
- "It's not such an easy thing to make one properly without creating anomalies and contradictions." - Actually, I did find it relatively easy to do that. Thanks for the concern, though. :) Your understanding of the challenges involved in a task like consistently recategorizing hundreds of pages is heartwarming.
- "This is something I've studied a little and knowing the problems involved I wouldn't attempt, by myself alone, to re-organize Wikipedia." - Good for you. Keep doing what you're doing, then, and I'll keep doing what I'm doing. :) -Silence 09:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm in Oregon until Saturday and had tried to send an email from my daughter's computer, but it bounced back.
Of course, we need to do a lot more work on the Festivals page, although publishing it might stimulate others to contribute...??
It should probably be named List of opera festivals in keeping with our other list, unless it is accompanied by an article describing the nature of an opera festival. But then - is that really relevant? Vivaverdi 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good to see the new list posted. Now I'll get back to work...
Vivaverdi 21:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler alert v. Opera
Well, okay, I won't un-revert your reversion to my placing a spoiler alert. I read the discussion you referenced, which is no discussion (there are no dissenting views, and the only views expressed are on the side of "let's remove the spoiler alerts because they're ugly") I see where you're coming from. But I will, half tongue-in-cheek, say this: shouldn't I be allowed to add a spoiler alert to the Daughter of the Regiment, since it's considered an Operetta, and thus, an opera form of the people, which you must disdain? (Or have colonized as part of the legitimation of western Art Music which process is your only deity?) Didn't Donzetti prepare his opera to be premiered one night without anyone knowing how the story would turn out? And are you all so dead-set against any of us actually *going* to the opera and experiencing it on its own terms, without knowing how the story is going to turn out? Probably so, you hate all of us unless we have a music theory degree. If we don't already know the story, we don't *deserve* to see it. If I were a mean-minded person I would say that the "legit" music scene deserves the declining audiences and funding it is encountering these days, if you represent in any way the latter-day proponents of opera. But I'm not. My wife's a pretty passable soprano, and I don't want our local community of art music people to fail to have funding. Part II is, people like me helped create the Internet, and a spoiler warning is *strict* etiquette to us. So when you call what we do ugly, we call it fulfilling the contract we have with other Internet users. We are not trying to make your opera articles ugly. And if the article is ugly, then fine. The word is not the thing, and a beautiful opera is not its synopsis. And if you think we're ugly, then there's ample precedent for thinking that the so-called defenders of western art music do it in an ugly way. Donizetti composed for the people, and I don't think he would have cursed me for not being perfectly prepared before I saw a performance of one of his works, nor having avoided having perfectly briefed another before seeing the operetta for the first time. As I said before, half toungue in cheek. :) Alan Canon 08:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (Punk but not bad on the contrabass.)
- First of all I don't have a music degree, but I have helped create the internet, having been active since the beginning of the 1990s. Second La fille du regiment is an opera not an operetta. Third, you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, but why not put it with the discussion rather than on my Talk page where no-one will read it? Keep up the good work! Best wishes. - Kleinzach 08:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
My concerns were based on the original version of the article that looked like a self-promo of a kind. The article has expanded quite nicely since then and I do not see any notability concerns as now. I have removed the tag. Thanks for contributing to a great article and thanks for your message allowing to remove my stupid tag. abakharev 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Transliteration of Russian
Maurice Renaud; Whistle-register nonsense
I am glad you liked the Battistini article. Please see the new Maurice Renaud creation.
I want to propose deleting category:Whistle register singers.
Tantris 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What to do about the Unchangeable??
I just happened upon the article related to the legendary 19th Century Italian tenor, MARIO. It identifies him as "Giuseppe [sic] Mario"!
Appart from being an embarrasment, this presuposes that "Mario" had a first name, which he didn't, not on stage, anyway. MARIO appeared on stage simply as plain MARIO. In any case his private Christian name was NOT Giuseppe but Giovanni. His birth name was Giovanni Matteo di Candia. This article also calls Giovanni Battista Rubini Alessandro Rubini...obviously whoever set it up had it in for the name John!
I would just correct the body of the article, but the problem is that up on top, that is to say, the reference title, says "Giuseppe Mario", which I don't think can be changed.
Any suggestions? Tantris 13:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but there never was a "Giovanni Matteo Mario": it was just plain MARIO, stage name of Giovanni Matteo di Candia. Tantris 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Just got your message - we can put him as Mario (tenor). Is that OK? (No harm in having multiple redirects - which are created automatically when we move articles.) - Kleinzach 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be ideal. Thanks. Please see my little article on Les Indes galantes and feel free to suggest any improvements.
Tantris 16:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Les Indes galantes
I used the schematic template given at your Opera Project site.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand "we need to write it up, rather than leave it in note form". Do you mean the synopsis? Of course, plots of French baroque operas are semi-non-existent, so they are very hard to detail without boggling the mind. Half of the action is allegorical dance, anyway.
Tantris 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at any Encyclopedia under the heading "Napoleon"", you are not going to find the sentence "Napoleon was an Emperor of the French", which sounds idiotic, kind of like "Dubarry was a lady", but "Napoleon, emperor of the French".
Similarly, If you look up Idomeneo, Re di Creta in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Opera, it does not say "Idomeneo, Re di Creta is an opera in 3 acts by Mozart"; it actually says Idomeneo, Re di Creta. Opera in 3 acts by Mozart; text by G. B. Varesco, after Danchet's libretto for Campra's Idomenée (1712) and the ancient legend.
Not a single little verb in that whole long sentence. Tantris 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Meladina's Russian opera articles (April 2006)
Dud you see my modest contribution in the opera project. It probably needs your correction.
With best wishes, yours
(Meladina 11:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
- The opera would be Historia von D. Johann Fausten (opera). (I can do this for you if you like.
- (2) Simplify Alexander Aronovich Knayfel’ to Alexander Knayfel’ as the patronymic is not usually used on Wikipedia.
I agree with the both of these changes, but I am not sure the best way how to do this. Could you do this for me please? (Meladina 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Talk:Historia von D. Johann Fausten (opera)
In fact, this is not a Russian-language opera but rather German-language opera as well as two operas by Edison Denisov that were written on French. Probably it has be attached to another cathegory like Russian operas or Operas by Russian composers??? (Meladina 13:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historia_von_D._Johann_Fausten_%28opera%29" Category: Russian-language operas Meladina
Yes I agree, "The Canteville Ghost" is better, however in a few souces including Knayfel's printed catalogue it spells "The Ghost of Canterville" (probably it would be right to add this in brackets). (Meladina 16:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
I am sorry to say, but trying to redirect The Ghost, I suddenly deleted it. Probably, it is impossible to recower. I regret very much!!! (Meladina 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
The Ghost appeared again!
Thank you so much! (Meladina 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
Sorry about that - it was actually an unintended slip while making a link for the new Crociato article. Best regards--Smerus 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Opera buffa vs Comic opera
Both opera buffa and comic opera suggest (regardless of the accuracy of the statement) that the names mean the same thing (not to mention Opéra comique). Since you have stated that you feel a merge is not required, perhaps you could join us at Talk:Opera buffa and describe what you see as the appropriate distribution of the material that is currently located across multiple pages. Thanks. -Harmil 15:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
They seem only to have vandalized twice in the last month, and they've stopped now. Since it's sometimes hard to tell whether an IP is shared or not, I tend to lean on the side of not blocking when a vandal isn't doing much damage. Plus their edits weren't that detrimental/offensive. As always, good work on the Opera Project. Mak (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)