Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

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

A selection of December and January's new articles...

Vincent Boussard.jpg

Composer and Opera 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:


Composer of the Month for February, 2019

Click Here to set up February's Composer of the Month!


Opera of the Month for February, 2019

Click Here to set up February's Opera of the Month!

Click here to show the March and April Opera and Composer of the Month preparation areas

Composer of the Month for March, 2019

Click Here to set up March's Composer of the Month!


Opera of the Month for March, 2019

Click Here to set up March's Opera of the Month!


Composer of the Month for April, 2019

Click Here to set up April's Composer of the Month!


Opera of the Month for April, 2019

Click Here to set up April's Opera of the Month!

Clean up project: Copyright violations
Project alerts
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
Archives – Table of Contents
Archives – Alphabetical Index


Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As of September 2018, there are over 3000 opera-related articles classed as "stubs". The full list can be found at Category:Stub-Class Opera articles. If you have some free time, consider checking these once in a awhile to see if the class still applies. Some may well have been considerably expanded since they were last rated. Or you may find a potentially useful/important topic that you could expand or nominate for the monthly collaborations. Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Article creation and cleanup requests[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Past creation and cleanup requests are archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Article requests
Cleanup requests
Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This list is updated weekly, on a Tuesday (according to its History list). Scarabocchio (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Image requests[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

List here any articles for which you would like an image or any current images which could use cleanup or improvement.

WikiProject X[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an initiative to improve WikiProjects and other subject-area collaborations on Wikipedia through research, design, and experimentation. The archive of their past newsletters is here. The WikiProject X coordinator is Harej. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Free subscriptions to databases[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this here. But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the current article guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The latest discussion (January 2014) is archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from the German language Opera Project[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to say Hi! from the German language Opera Project. We started in the beginning of 2011, a very recent effort compared to you. Likewise, our average articles on operas, composers etc. are quite behind the en:WP in terms of coverage and content. Which is a shame, considering the richness of opera life in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We have started by focussing on the widely read articles on popular operas, see this List, which gives page impressions in de:WP and en:WP and also global number of productions per year as a proxy for popularity. The rationale is this: given our low number of contributors, having 20 formerly poor articles on popular operas turned into solid works is worth more then 20 more articles on arcane subjects. How did you go about growing your project? PS: Maybe there could be some areas of cooperation, especially as regards access to and understanding of German language sources and literature. Let me know what you think. --Non mi tradir (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I have introduced this timely proposal to the discussion here. --Smerus 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons can be found in the people who worked on this project years ago. Back around 2005-2006, there was an opera fan who took on a personal mission to improve opera in en.WP. This is User:Kleinzach. It's not only that he improved articles. He was an excellent promoter of the cause, enlisting a number of people from the email list OPERA-L, who, along with him, abridged their email participation because they felt that contributing to WP was a better cause. He was very helpful and encouraging to those who wanted to help. These people in turn took off on their own. (He inspired me to create a WP account back in 2006, though I didn't contribute to WP:OPERA back then). As I have often remarked on Wikipedia, it's not just about adding information - it's about creating and maintaining a social environment that makes people want to contribute. - kosboot (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles needing libretto links[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on this page on Karadar, but it will require adding those new links to the articles, and I'm not sure how long it will be before Karadar closes that loop hole. Anyhow, here's the list of operas so far where I've removed dead links and there is currently no other alternative. It's also possible to recover some of the karadar links via the Wayback machine, as was done at L'éclair, although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Help! Does anyone know how to access Karadar these days? It appears to be a dead link - and I've tried to get into it via a couple of ways. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi. It appears to have disappeared in all its guises–.com, .org. and .it. I have a feeling they ran into copyright problems with some of their stuff. It's not showing up on Google searches at all and see this wacky note. I have found this other site which has links to zillions of libretti. Hopefully, you'll find the one(s) you're looking for. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Le domino noir (only score found), Sigurd (opera), Ciro in Babilonia, Sigismondo, Ricciardo e Zoraide, Eduardo e Cristina, L'equivoco stravagante, I Capuleti e i Montecchi, Médée (Charpentier), Emilia di Liverpool, Francesca di Foix, Il signor Bruschino

Spam links to watch out for[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Tool for finding all pages currently linking to a particular domain

  • Commercial site based in Italy selling streamed opera recordings. Had been added to 20 singer and opera articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Not yet blacklisted

Requested opera templates[edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 120. Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Place new requests here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Almanacco Amadeus – Che disastro![edit]

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's disappeared again. All links now redirect to this site. I'm keeping an eye out to see if the almanacco re-surfaces, but so far it's nowhere to be found on the new site. Grrrr! Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's finally available again: --Rodomonte (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to adapt Template:Almanacco to the new URL and its parameters; it seems to work. Lamentably, I discovered only later that Rodomonte had already modified de:Vorlage:Almanacco similarly – that template hadn't been linked to the EN template via interwiki links (now corrected). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that, Rodomonte and Michael! Not only for the good news but for fixing the template too. Brilliant! Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Bravo to Jacqke for the newly expanded Bernardo De Pace. It made today's main Did You Know section with:

Did you know that Bernardo De Pace, an Italian immigrant, started his own opera company and eventually performed at the Metropolitan Opera in New York?

A fascinating article! I'm also going to add it to the DYK section of Portal:Opera tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It was fun to work on. Thank you!Jacqke (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Violeta Urmana[edit]

Help please. Someone keeps adding from her website. (Not that what was our article before is much better, sadly.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Third time. I reverted one more than I normally do already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gerda. I've made a start cleaning this up and referencing it. I left a stern warning on the COI miscreant's talk page. I think he's got the point. Anyhow, this is a very distinguished singer and deserves something better than the poor quality mess that it was. I'll continue to work on this next week. Of anyone else wants to chip in at the article, be my guest. :) Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That is much more than I hoped for, already, thank you. I have a series of singers this month, including improving Elly Ameling who also deserves better. I'll look at this one again after that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Spam links to "Online Music Library"[edit]

A single purpose editor has been doing nothing on Wikipedia but placing links to the Online Music Library on dozens of articles. They place them at the very top of "External links" sections and even created Template:OpenMusicLibrary for the purpose. Note, that the original version of this template had two links to the OML, one for the person and one to the site's homepage. I have since altered it to remove the latter link [1]. This is a for-profit site (owned by Pro-Quest) which aims to get people to subscribe to their streaming and paywall articles. See here. The pages have nothing on them that contributes to further knowledge about the person. See, for example, their pages on Maria Callas and Telemann. I am in the process of removing all of these links (about 30 so far), but would like members' opinion on this. This is a list of the 60+ pages still linked to the template. Previous spammers from this company had also added 30+ links to this site in 2016 and 2017–2018. Some, but not all, of those have since been removed. I have posted a similar message on this issue at the Classical Music project, because there isn't a complete overlap in membership. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - i have removed form articles I have worked on/am looking at.--Smerus (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Although links to OML's individual "person" pages are unsuitable for addition to articles for the reasons outlined at the discussion at WikiProject Classical Music, I have added a link to OML at WikiProject Opera's Guide to Online Research. Re access to material behind paywalls in general, I'd like to remind everyone about The Wikipedia Library Card Platform. Wikipedia has formed partnerships with a variety of academic publishers to provide free access to their online material for Wikipedia editors on approved application. Many of them are highly relevant to opera and classical music or have a significant number of books and scholarly journals on the subject, e. g. Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals (RIPM), JSTOR, Project MUSE, Taylor & Francis, Baylor University Press, Bloomsbury Publishing, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Edinburgh University Press, etc.. The full list of partners and instructions for application is here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation of singers[edit]

This is something not covered in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines but one can survey the precedents at Category:Opera singers. I'm considering moving User:Sparafucil/Paul Bender to Paul Bender (singer) instead of Paul Bender (bass), Paul Bender (musician) having been being homesteaded by an electric bass player of undetermined notability and Paul Bender being ready for a move to Paul Bender (jurist). There are a couple of other naming variations such as Peter Cornelius (opera singer) and Caroline Müller (1755-1826), apparently a move from Caroline Müller (mezzo-soprano). It's of course revealing of WP's coverage of women in general that hardly any sopranos or mezzos have needed dabs. Sparafucil (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's common practice here to disambiguate opera singers by their voice type, "(bass)" in this case, despite his occasional Amfortas. Why would a bland "(singer)" be preferable? (The 2 current links to that term can be taken care of with a REDIRECT.)
As for those counterexamples above: Cornelius sang equally tenor and baritone, so "(opera singer)" seems appropriate. The REDIRECT at Paul Bender (musician) could be moved to Paul Bender (bassist) because there are no incoming links, but I don't think ("musician)" is appropriate for the opera singer Bender. Caroline Müller was apparently known as an actress as much as a singer and her voice type is a bit uncertain – she might as well be disambiguated as "(soprano)", so using her vitals seems reasonable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Paul Bender (musician) is just a redirect to his group, though they seem reasonably popular. One might take that over with a hatnote. In any case a disam page will be needed once the singer hits articlespace. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Michael. And as a side note to Sparafucil... the fact that sopranos and mezzos rarely need disambiguation is more a reflection of the fact that the majority of them have "foreign" names which are highly unlikely to be identical to any other person on Wikipedia where biographical coverage tends to be somewhat skewed to figures in the English-speaking world. It's certainly not gender bias. By 2016, the number of articles on female opera singers was nearly double that of male singers. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To perhaps clarify, the two already common forms are (voice-type) and (singer), the outlier (opera singer) merely arousing my curiosity about a possible correspondingly named (flamenco singer) (and btw what male singer hasn't started out with some baritone rep?). But (bassist) is established, so Paul Bender (bass) it will be, Zwischenfach or no (I note though two incoming links, by different editors, to Paul Bender (singer)). As to the tangent, it's touching that anyone can be so certain there's no possibility of bias, but the proffered theory hardly begins to explain away Category:German operatic basses (5/25) and Category:German operatic sopranos (0/134). Sparafucil (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception for Britten's Dream?[edit]

On A Midsummer Night's Dream (opera), there is a cleanup tag attached to the reception: The opera originally received a mixed critical assessment. Britten's estranged collaborator W. H. Auden dismissed it as "dreadful – pure Kensington," while many others{{Who}} praised it highly. I'm incapable of navigating the relevant sources, but surely someone here can either rewrite the reception bit or find an attributable positive review to cite for the tagged part of the sentence? --Xover (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xover. Done! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Voceditenore. Excellent work, and much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Katie Clarke[edit]

Katie Clarke was a red link for Jahrhundertring, or rather 8 red links. I can't find much about her. Anybody around who has printed records from the ENO? There are many women with that name which doesn't make things easier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

1876 Rhinemaidens[edit]

We have this image of the first Rhinemaidens in Bayreuth, in 1876, but this source has it reverse, making it difficult to say who's who. Any help welcome, looking at a main page appearance for the opening of the Bayreuth festival on 25 July. Lilli Lehmann is in the middle, that's for sure, but where is Minna Lammert (Floßhilde) on which version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

One of those is obviously flipped. This image, from Philip Gossett's 2014 article "Opera from the Other Side" in The New York Review of Books gives, because of its framing, more credence to Lehmann's version: Lammert – LL – Marie L. (left to right). This version also seems more widely published than the AKG one. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, will change then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Icelandic Opera Ragnheiður[edit]

I wrote a draft for an article on the icelandic opera Ragnheiður, to be found in my sandbox (Not sure, though, if you can see it? I've never written much before. Currently it's waiting for a review), trying to adhere to the structure of other articles and the information posted here in the WikiProject. Would very much like to hear your opinions (and also proofreading, because English isn't my native language); there is already an article on the opera on the German Wikipedia (Ragnheiður), so I thought it would be good to add one to the English one as well. AccioFelicis (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ratings of articles[edit]

Who does these ratings of opera articles "Stub, start, C class" etc? It is impossible to tell by looking at the box at the top of the talk page how recently they were done. I feel a lot of them were "rated" when the article was created and have not been updated since, for instance Ottone,Giulio Cesare and Semele (Handel) are all rated "Start class" which I think is ridiculous. Le prophète is rated B-class, fair enough, but Les Huguenots "start class" which seems silly. I don't like to "rate" articles I have re-written myself, is it possible to request a rating from someone else? I don't actually care about these ratings or GA or FA status as I don't think the readers know or care about such things, I had a very bad first experience with trying to get an article promoted to GA status with a reviewer who knew absolutely nothing about the subject and swore never to bother with "status" again. However the other day an editor said something to me like "I don't know why you are being so fussy about this article, it is only C class" so for that reason I would like the "ratings" to reflect reality a little better. (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Project Classical music doesn't do any rating, and we could do the same. I care about GA and FA because it's reviewed quality. Anything else is probably not worth to spend time on it. I look at articles, not at a rating box ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm tending to agree with Smeat75 about this issue. I think we need to discuss this in more depth as well as possible solutions when I get back from deepest darkest Tuscany tomorrow.--Voceditenore (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I also sympathize with Smeat75 on this (thanks for your great work on Meyerbeer operas by the way!). Save that I think that GA and FA have value as indicating the standards we should seek to rise to - (but that depends of course on how sensible the reviewer(s) may be). Stub class has value as indication that some basic work is needed; the other classes serve no purpose as far as I can see.Smerus (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Smerus. (Recently I wrote a very long detailed article - more information than could be found anywhere - and it merited only a C.) I know many WikiProjects have stub-upgrade campaigns. Perhaps Voceditenore could include a list of stubs (currently 3,141) along with the various updates that begin the talk page. kosboot (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion, kosboot. I've added a section on stubs with a link to Category:Stub-Class Opera articles to the top of this page and added a similar message to the "How you can help" section on the main project page. Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I have no particular stake in this discussion, but just to throw a couple of cents in… The rating system is primarily useful as a way for a WikiProject to track and categorise the articles within its scope (this rating is for editors, not readers, and the per-project rating is for that project, not others). The underlying assumption is that the WikiProject desires to systematically improve the quality of the articles as much as possible. This is not always a valid assumption: Women in Red, for example, mainly cares about de-redlinking biographical articles about women, while Disambiguation deals with dabs, which have no quality rating, not articles. But under that assumption, the |importance= parameter is a way for the WikiProject to prioritise its work.
The quality rating is mostly standardised across projects, but with quite a lot of room for subjective judgement in each category. To a degree, Smerus and Gerda Arendt are right: Stub and Start are relatively clear categories, and GA and FA have associated peer-review processes, but everything else is pretty random. But, and this is the crucial bit, the WikiProject is who does these ratings! That means the WikiProject has latitude to define its practices in this regard (within reason, of course). As an example, Military History has implemented their own process and detailed, project-specific, criteria for A- and B-class. I haven't looked in detail, but I believe the setup is roughly: B-class is a checklist of MILHIST-specific criteria that anyone can assess against, but A- class requires review in a process maintained by the WikiProject (think FA, but strictly within the MILHIST project).
At that point you have Stub-class (any minimal new article; no cites, no structure); Start-class (at least one cite, at least one heading); C-class (everything else: better than Start but not yet A/B/GA/FA); B-class (self-assessed against project-specific checklist); A-class (project-assessed against project-specific criteria); GA-class (lightweight community-assessed against community-wide criteria; probably comparable to B-class); FA (comprehensively community-assessed against community-wide criteria). If the project doesn't have the capacity or interest in maintaining A- and B-class, and doesn't specifically relate to GA and FA, then the effective scale becomes: Stub, Start, C.
That is, you can opt out of using A and B class (and these can be disabled in {{WikiProject Opera}}), and have a scale of Stub, Start, everything else (C) for anything that hasn't been through a community process (GA, FA). Or you can define Opera-specific criteria and process for A- and B-class and use those actively.
I want to argue in favor of using at least the minimal quality rating system as a good way to organize work: if you use it conciously, for that, it's a good system. Where it falls down is if you start to assign meaning to it that it doesn't actually have: it is not like a star rating for a hotel or restaurant, which seems like what frustrated Smeat75 above, and more like the project's internal todo list. There is no reason why you should not review or re-review an article you've worked on, any more than there would be a reason for not crossing out an item on a todo list when the item has been completed. Unless the project (A-class) or community (GA/FA-class) has defined a specific process that entails independent review, of course. --Xover (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The Opera project's assessment system (stub, start, C, B, A) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment is an "ancient artefact". It was developed 10 years ago, but never really got past a few attempts at applying it to articles. The problem is that using the C, B, and A classes required way more work than members could possibly carry out on a consistent basis. At that time there were about 5000 articles under the OP banner. Now there are nearly 11,000! I would not be in favour of dispensing completely with the "class" parameter as it is a very valuable tool for keeping track of OP articles. For example, the Classical Music Project which eliminated class/assessment has no way of seeing stub articles under its banner, nor GAs and FAs. Nor can it differentiate and find other types of pages, e.g. lists, drafts, templates, etc. as the OP banner does now:
Featured article FA A-Class article A  GA B-Class article B C-Class article C Start-Class article Start Stub-Class article Stub Featured list FL  List Category page Category Disambiguation page Disambig  Draft  File  Portal  Project  Template  NA  ??? Total
As far as I can figure out that kind of extended page classification is only available if there are at least some quality classes used in the banner. I could investigate a way of keeping the extended page classification while reducing the available quality classes to simply stub, GA, FA, and FL and perhaps add a note to that effect in the text of the banner and updating the current assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Assessment. I'm not sure that keeping a "start" class is all that valuable given the huge variations in quality and depth of coverage, For example, both Mala vita and Le tribut de Zamora are rated "start". In the meantime, Smeat75, I agree with Xover that you should go ahead and re-assess articles that need it, even if you were the principal author. Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A- and B-class are the only complicated ones. All the List and Dab stuff aren't quality so much as type of article and give themselves. All the GA, Featured Whatever come out of a process and are mostly a given when relevant (no effort actually required). If you eliminate A- and B- class (which WikiBannerMeta has facilities to do, it shouldn't be a problem), you're left with just Stub, Start, and C. And my rules of thumb for these is:
  • Stub: default for any new undeveloped article. It's a stub from the time it's a single line, until it reaches Start level.
  • Start: If it cites at least one source and has at least one heading (speaks to organization) it's Start.
  • C: Clearly better than the generally undeveloped Stub/Start. Stub/Start are obviously undeveloped. C is everything else until it reaches GA/FA.
Using those rules of thumb I find the rating stuff to be pretty much a no-brainer. If you use User:Evad37/rater, the purely mechanical bit of rating and rerating articles becomes pretty effortless too. Nothing's going to make processing 11k articles trivial: but the running ad hoc maintenance of them really doesn't have to be either complicated or hard. --Xover (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I like Xover's idea of having just stub, start, C, GA and FA, and would support any moves in this general direction.Smerus (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Cheryl Studer article needs eyes[edit]

The article on soprano Cheryl Studer has been overrun with obvious COI SPAs, who have written the bulk of the article, mostly without citations, and have edit-warred to preserve their edits. The editors in question are:

In fact, the accounts may all be the same editor, as there is a long break between the start and stop of each account.

In any case, the article has a lot of tags at the top and is in need of help and eyes. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Update, for those of you not following the saga at ANI. Luluplatz decided to go on a retaliatory spree, deleting role/repertoire lists from seven articles about other opera singers and is now indefinitely blocked. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that these generally don't belong as embedded lists in singer articles and are more suited to the singer's website than to an encyclopedia article. Having said that, if they are kept in an article, each role listed should have an inline citation, e.g. Simon Keenlyside#Operatic roles and Jonas Kaufmann#Repertoire. Ones that don't, like Anna Netrebko#Repertory and Renée Fleming#Repertory, probably should be removed or at least have the relevant section tagged as unreferenced and removed if references are not provided in a timely manner. Any thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes such entries should be referenced. Juan_Diego_Florez#Roles_sung_on_stage, that's another one. The accounts that have edit-warred on the Studer article are the same person, it is obvious to me, it is a notorious crazed fan who is obsessed with this singer and has trolled every online opera site for years.Smeat75 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what's worse, Smeat, the rabid fan or those working for/representing the singer. I recently had to get Nino Surguladze semi-protected because an IP was repeatedly over-writing it with lengthy and blatant copyvio which began with... er...
Referred to as “Penélope Cruz of the opera” by the media and compared at various times to Audrey Hepburn and Anna Magnani, Nino Surguladze is one of the leading mezzo-sopranos of modern generation, admired for her warm and velvety voice, incisive musicianship, excellent acting abilities, notable stage presence, and physical beauty.
Sure enough, a newly registered account has now shown up on the talk page saying "I am the editor (and owner) of Mrs. Surguladzes Webpages and edit additional most of ther public web appereances. So I need access to her Wikipedia enty to keep it up to date". Let's hope they don't figure out how to get autoconfirmed. SMirC-crazy.svg Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally would prefer tagging rather than deleting the lists on the most prominent living tenor and soprano(s). While I dislike fancruft, there is encyclopedic merit of lists for indivuduals of that stature. Worst case scenario for me would be move the lists to talk until cited or until there is a consensus what to do with them, as I think outright deletion destroys valuable info. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

La Belle et la Bête (opera)[edit]

In La Belle et la Bête (opera), we miss a ref for the soloists of the premiere. I assume that they are the same as for the first recording, but that's propably not enough. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. They weren't exactly the same. I've fixed the role table and added a reference. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. I was only the nominator, so rather helpless, and could find anything easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! :) The live premiere was in Seville. The recording was made later at The Looking Glass Studios in New York. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

‎Ser Amantio di Nicolao[edit]

"Naturally, he's an opera lover" - The Washington Post has a nice profile of User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Meet the Most Prolific Contirbutor To the English Wikipedia. - kosboot (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kosboot: Thanks kindly for the ping. (Meant to say something earlier today, but I've been in and out of the house.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Return of the spurious "discographer"?[edit]

Back in 2011 we had a spate of spurious additions to discographies by an Italian IP. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 100#Spurious "discographer" at it again for background. He may have returned. The IPs currently involved are (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and possibly others in those ranges, all of which resolve to Linkem SpA in central/southern Italy. Their additions to La fiamma were clearly non-existent recordings, ditto Médée (Cherubini). There other additions need to be checked. Also, if any you find discography changes in articles on your watchlists added without references and by an IP, it may be better to remove them to the talk page pending verification. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate who has reverted some of their edits in other opera-related discographies. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a fake recording to I Masnadieri [2].Smeat75 (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Smeat75, was the last editor before the revert by Rodomonte, but the fake recording had been added by above. See [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This user has never left us. In the meantime he mainly vandalized and other language versions. Recently he created several very small stubs about totally unknown operas in the german wikipedia, which have already been deleted. For more information also see User_talk:, User_talk: and User_talk: Some of the known IPs are / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / --Rodomonte (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Rodomonte. What a complete pain this person is! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
For his activities on simple, you may have a look at my reverts.[4] There may be much more.--Rodomonte (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This is bizarre! He even makes lists of fake recordings and then adds them to articles. He's also been trolling Talk:List of important operas, see [5]. I've removed it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The way to keep obsessive hoaxers like this down is try & ensure the stuff doesn't stay up at all long. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
You might also report long-term abuse at WP:AIV. Some increasingly long and increasingly broad rangeblocks might make them lose interest. --Xover (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This came up on the CheckUser mailing list; it's apparently cross-wiki disruption. There were reports from Italian Wikipedia and French Wikipedia, and I tried to clean up the edits here. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the topic. You can ping me if you see something that needs admin attention, like blocking or semi-protection. For what it's worth, the main IP ranges used seem to be and If it keeps up, I probably could do range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, NinjaRobotPirate. We'll now keep an eye out and ping you of it continues. An edit filter might be another possibility. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
User:NinjaRobotPirate, he is still trolling.[6] I think, it would be usefull to have a global page for this user, where his edits on all wikipedias could be collected. --Rodomonte (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know of any global forums for tracking edits by disruptive editors. On English Wikipedia, we have Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Opéra bouffon[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opéra bouffon. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"List of operas by ..." articles and titles[edit]

I've been rifling through the contributions of several users, looking for talk page archives with non-standard naming schemes and trying to fix them when necessary. Tonight the user whose edits I've been checking was Kleinzach, and when I found a page entitled "List of operettas by Offenbach" (with its archive), I moved it to List of operettas by Jacques Offenbach without a second thought, because most articles with titles in the form "List of XXX by YYY" use full names (such as the lists of compositions pages). Ditto with List of operas by Handel. Then I came upon the relevant cat and went gung-ho, moving all the articles whose surnames start with A and B and updating links/templates. Unless there is general consensus here that I deserve to be screamed at for my actions so far, I plan to do this for the entire category. I love classical music (but not so much opera), but I have a visceral hatred of the practice of referring to people by surnames on Wikipedia on first mention; it just seems so elitist to me. The list formerly at the title list of operas by Adam almost sounds as if it could be a list of operas by Adam. And I'd also note that the list of operas by Antonio Vivaldi has been at that title for over three years seemingly without complaint. I searched the archives here but couldn't find any mention of first names, so here I am. Graham87 13:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support what you are proposing (and have started). I share your dislike of using surnames alone on first mention, even for the best known of composers. --Deskford (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a major opinion at present for the famous and non-confusable names like Handel, but "List of operas by Adam" is quite a yikes. Thanks for fixing it. Softlavender (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the approach, although every time I see Wolfgang Amadeus, I remember that he'd never have used that himself ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL indeed. I'll go ahead with the moves. Graham87 03:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that giant task! I think we'll need the redirects, because people searching may rather remember Galuppi than Baldassare, and wonder if we should make even shorter redirects also, such as Galuppi operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries, all done! I kept the redirects in all cases (or at least that was my intention); I think they're still useful. Shorter redirects might be handy too. Graham87 11:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Graham, many thanks for taking this on, heroic work!!! But - looking at Category:Lists of operas by composer, I see that there are curious variants in the articles listed. Apart from 'list of operas by', there are 'list of operas and operettas by', 'lists of works for the stage by', and even 'list of stage and broadcast works by'. In the latter case it includes a ballet and a number of ballades - so not a list of operas then. Some of the lists of 'works for the stage by' - e.g. List of works for the stage by Manuel de Falla - also include incidental music and ballets. So I ask editors, is there a need of a rethink as to what title can apply to what sort of list?. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya[edit]

Needs eyes. A Russian comedy actress and TV star of the same name was killed in a traffic accident on October 19 [7]. There have already been two attempts to state that the opera singer, i.e. the subject of Marina Poplavskaya, was killed on October 19. Meanwhile, the opera singer appears to have retired and gone into real estate. Probably true, but the sole source I can find is Norman Lebrecht's blog, which should never be used as a source for anything, let alone a BLP. However, this appears to be her (with a brief bio) listed on the official website of Citi Habitats (a NY real estate firm). Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed on Ailyn Pérez and Nadine Sierra[edit]

Both are notable, but both have been receiving the attentions of an obvious PR rep. I've cleaned up the Perez article somewhat. The Sierra article needs further checking. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel Choir[edit]

In writing an article about Odoardo Ceccarelli who was an opera singer and a singer in the Sistine Chapel Choir, I was taken aback by the utterly appalling state of that article. Zero references to scholarly sources, incomplete, POV, and badly written. Not the least of this is the goofy "Golden Age" headings, and especially the so-called "Second Golden Age", allegedly presided over by Lorenzo Perosi. Much of the article is cribbed verbatim from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia overlaid with the dreadful ministrations of a series of sockpuppets who were attempting to promote Leonardo Ciampa and his self-published biography of Perosi. Antandrus will remember that saga. Anyhow, this is just a heads-up if anyone is looking for something to do. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Aria articles with youtube links[edit]

There have recently been created quite a few articles on individual arias that have links to youtube recordings and videos. For example Caro nome che il mio cor, created today, links to a recording by Callas on youtube, Ella giammai m'amò, links to youtube performances by Ferrucio Furlanetto and Christoff, Tu che le vanità, three youtube links. Is it OK to do this? Youtube links are unstable for one thing and these articles are likely to go for years without revision. If it is OK to link to youtube for individual arias, why don't we do it for entire operas? I could add a zillion of them. And I am sure at least some of these are copyright violations. Any advice?Smeat75 (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

So long as they're not copyright violations, I'm not aware of any policy reason these could not be in the "External links" section. Youtube is not, in general, a reliable source, and a recording would be a primary source, so as a citation they are at best iffy.
But I have a hard time imagining most such clips are not copyright violations. Of the six clips linked in your above three articles, three are licensed for publication on Youtube (you can see licensing details in the video's description); the remaining three are very probably copyright violations. And WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO prohibits including such links. --Xover (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I haven't found good-faith YouTube links to be unstable. If they are uploaded by the artist, the artists' company or representative, the recording label or studio, or by YouTube, they are not copyright violations. If they are copyright violations (which all of the ones you mentioned are), they should not be added to Wikipedia, and should be removed. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What do others think?[edit]

I don't know what to think of this edit to an opera, Zazà. I feel provoked, but will try to ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd leave it be for the moment. If/when the article is expanded from more than a single paragraph, it can be revisited. In fact, I may expand it myself later on. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RILM Music Encyclopedias[edit]

I just had a chance to examine a resource RILM Music Encyclopedias - scanned/encoded versions of 54 dictionaries/encyclopedias. It's available at my public library but not from home (perhaps some academic institutions make it available from home for alumni). The list of encyclopedias is very interesting - I know a number of these works are among the only places to find biographical information on certain musicians. I've put the ones most useful for opera research in bold:

  • Algemene muziekencyclopedie
  • Annals of Opera
  • Band Music Notes
  • Biographical Dictionary of Afro-American and African Musicians
  • Biographical Dictionary of Musicians: With a Bibliography of English Writings on Music
  • Biographical Dictionary of Russian/Soviet Composers
  • Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie générale de la musique
  • Biographisch-bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon
  • Blasmusik-Lexikon: Komponisten – Autoren – Werke – Literatur
  • Broadway: Its History, People, and Places: An Encyclopedia
  • Československý hudební slovník osob a institucí
  • Concise Garland Encyclopedia of World Music
  • Conductors and Composers of Popular Orchestral Music: A Biographical and Discographical Sourcebook
  • Dictionary of American classical composers
  • Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 1450–1889)
  • Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes
  • Dictionnaire de la musique: Les hommes et leurs œuvres
  • Dictionnaire de la musique: Science de la musique: Formes, techniques, instruments
  • Dictionnaire de musique
  • Dictionnaire des œuvres de l’art vocal
  • Dizionario degli editori musicali italiani, 1750–1930
  • Dizionario e bibliografia della musica
  • Dizionario universale dei musicisti (Schmidl)
  • Enciclopédia da música brasileira
  • Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music
  • Encyclopedia of Music in the 20th Century
  • Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
  • Encyclopedia of the American Theatre Organ
  • Encyclopedia of the Blues
  • Encyclopédie de la musique et dictionnaire du Conservatoire
  • Garland Encyclopedia of World Music
  • Gothic- und Dark Wave-Lexikon: Das Lexikon der schwarzen Szene, von Ambient bis Industrial, von Neofolk bis Future Pop und von Goth-Rock bis Black Metal
  • Großes Sängerlexikon
  • Handwörterbuch der musikalischen Terminologie
  • Historical Dictionary of the Music and Musicians of Finland
  • Hollywood Songsters: Singers Who Act and Actors Who Sing: A Biographical Dictionary
  • Hugo Riemanns Musik-Lexikon
  • International Encyclopedia of Women Composers
  • Komponisten der Gegenwart
  • March Music Notes
  • Melodramma italiano: Dizionario bio-bibliografico dei compositori
  • Neues Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonküstler
  • Opernlexikon (Stieger)
  • Paris Opéra: An Encyclopedia of Operas, Ballets, Composers, and Performers
  • Percussionists: A biographical dictionary (JRG)
  • Steirisches Musiklexikon
  • Tin Pan Alley: An Encyclopedia of the Golden Age of American Song
  • The 20th century violin concertante
  • Παγκοσμιο Λεξικο Της Μουσικης [Pagkosmio Lexiko Tes Mousikes]

Hope this is of some use. - kosboot (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello everyone! I need help with this draft I prevented from deletion over a year ago and have been working on lately.

  • When I took over, it had an immense opera repertoire list, which I condensed into a short paragraph about important roles. Good idea or not?
  • While researching, I discovered an emphasis on performing works from jewish composers, and mentioned it in the lead. Good idea or not?
  • Every source I used is in the footnotes (I still have many more about operatic roles). Too much? Should I keep only the big newspapers?

I would very much appreciate any advice or help! OrestesLebt (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This was the draft when I found it: OrestesLebt (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought so too, until I searched for her name. I was surprised about the many results, especially from Germany. Apparently, she's a leading lady at the Landestheater Detmold. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well if agreed as notable I suggest the list of 'awards and recognitions' is way over the top, and that 'Jewish' should have capital J throughout.Smerus (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Without having seen this, I capitalised Jewish, and added some formatting. I agree that the list of awards should be pruned to those worth mentioning which may be few. May look again tomorrow, and should improve the theatre article ;) She seems to be well on her way, so I'd say notable-enough-to-be, - why wait? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all, and thank you so much Gerda Arendt! OrestesLebt (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC) link structure change?[edit]

I noticed some links to pages suddenly leading to empty pages. Maybe the link structure changed with the recent redesign of the page, or maybe the links had not been created from the "permalink" but the URL shown in the browser? I'm going to replace those broken links with currently working ones, assuming that this is not something that will be fixed on the operabase side. One question: If a broken link entry has an access date, should I update it or not?

For example, the empty link:

The working link would be:

OrestesLebt (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) as a source[edit]

As far as I know, Opera Musica uses websites of artists, theatres and wikipedia as its source. If artists 'claim' the pages created about them, they can edit the content. Entries in Biography, Repertoire, Education, Competitions and Press might therefore be self published. The Agenda section, Assuming events in it can be edited by every listed artist, might be more reliable, if more than one artist in an event has a claimed profile. Thoughts? OrestesLebt (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Andreas Bauer Kanabas[edit]

Per this, Andreas Bauer announced that from December 2018, he is Andreas Bauer Kanabas, - including his mother's surname, probably tired of being confused with sports people and a double bass player. What do we do? Move? Say it's another name? How about the prose? - Never had this before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gerda. I'd move the page to the "new name" and leave the old title as a redirect. I note that both Operabase [8] and Oper Frankfurt [9] now use "Andreas Bauer Kanabas". Ditto his management agent. Change opening sentences of the lede to something like....
Andreas Bauer Kanabas is a German classical bass in opera and concert. Prior to December 2018, he performed under the name Andreas Bauer. A member of the Frankfurt Opera, he has performed major roles...
Reference it to his website announcement, change the name at the top of the ibox to the new name and list "Andrea Bauer". under | other_names = . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, feel supported ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't change much in the text, because everything he did so far was under the short name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

L'Africaine / Vasco de Gama[edit]

See here (talk page of L'Africaine): an editor has added information on a new edition and is asserting that the title of the article will need to change. Comments invited.--Smerus (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Crowe (singer)[edit]

Opinions welcome --Smerus (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

FLRC notification[edit]

I have nominated List of important operas for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey again![edit]

So, it's been a while, but I think I'm back, at least for a while. Have a bit more time and energy for things. Trying to catch up on some of the old illustration projects.

Philippe Chaperon - Rigoletto.jpg

is the first.

I have a number of things I can work on. Gallica has a LOT of images in that line. If people suggest things, I'll see what I can do. Need to remind myself how to download Gallica things, though, as two years off means you forget a lot of stuff. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you're not going to suggest things, you get what you get.

Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg

You do such a great service Adam Cuerden. I've consulted Gallica a number of times. If there were more people involved with WP:Opera, it would be cool to assemble a list of operas not in WP but where Gallica has lots of material. Also, at the local Wikipedia Day event, someone gave a talk on how so many images lack appropriate or enough categories. Images from operas shouldn't be just about the opera, but any relevant ideas that are illlustrated. - kosboot (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back Adam! I've added that wonderfully arresting Rigoletto scene to the Featured Picture rotation at Portal:Opera. I like your idea about assembling images of operas for which we have no articles, kosboot. I wish I had the time for it, but perhaps someone here will get to it. Gallica is such a treasure trove, but I always do the process in reverse—create the article and then hunt up an illustration at Gallica. Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Glad to be back! I needed a break to.. um, write the music to a couple operettas. Not that they'll be performed anytime soon. Probably going to try to work through Philippe Chaperon (et al)'s stuff one or two a month for the foreseeable future, so just give me a poke about anything you could use help with.
Oh, could someone check Haydée? The article was a little too short for three images, so I threw the Chaperon into the infobox for now. We could instead lose the alright-but-not-amazing sketch. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Great to have you with us, Adam. LouisAlain is taking commissions for anything in French, just created a director today. Drop him titles under "January" on his talk, and say I sent you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
ps: could someone who knows ths title standards give a better title to that director's image, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. I'm thinking I might just go for one of the easy ones next: Tannhauser. Nice imagery, and the article is criminally under-illustrated. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
How do we find the images you put on Gallica Adam? The others seem to know but I don't.Smeat75 (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC):
I assume you mean how do we find images on Gallica. Here's an advanced search page in English. You can see under "Type of document" one of the options allows you to search for images: - kosboot (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood what Adam was saying. I do know how to search on Gallica, I thought Adam was saying he had some cache of special images just for this project stored away somewhere.Smeat75 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
While it is easy to find images on Gallica, it is a bit tricky to download them in the highest possible quality. Gallica only offers complete images in a reduced resolution or small selections in high resolution. You have to use a script or a special URL as described on c:Commons:Gallica.--Rodomonte (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Of which only the first suggestion works - the tool is broken. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 08:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I use the old ocaml script which has recently been deleted. It does still work on my linux system. --Rodomonte (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Tim riley and I have been working on Rossini's article and now have it up for peer review, en route, we hope, to FAC. Any comments, queries or suggestions for improvement will be most welcome there.--Smerus (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the images are a bit weirdly cropped. But I'll get that fixed. A lot of them just need the high-res copies grabbed from over on Gallica. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 10:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Adam! -- Smerus (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in working on that article, but I note that, with the exception of Rossini's crypt, all the images are people, and nearly all of them are close-ups of people. Maybe a picture of an important theater or two could make the visual impression less monotonous? Or maybe a bit of manuscript? Just a fairly minor suggestion. - kosboot (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

La donna serpente[edit]

There's a requested move for La donna serpente (opera), which deals with the question if fame or history decide if a play gets a disambiguation or the opera based on it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Loewenberg, Annals of Opera[edit]

Just realized that this valuable book is available through the Internet Archive. For those that have not used it, it not only gives the dates of the world premiere, but the dates of the first performance in other cities. It doesn't have absolutely everything, but has a great deal. - kosboot (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)