Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 117

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

Archive 116 | Archive 117 | Archive 118

Archives Table of Contents

Contents

AfC submission 1

Hey guys! Here's another submission for your consideration. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN! I'm fairly sure he would pass WP:MUSICBIO, provided the article is properly referenced. Sample coverage. But at the moment, it's referenced solely to sources which are not independent of the subject. I'm technically "away from my desk" until December 2nd, but I'll see what I can do with it when I get back, unless one of my colleagues jumps in first. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
What about this one? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, FoCuS :). This one scrapes it. I've added more references, re-written it (it was very closely paraphrased from his official bios), and moved into article space at Erik Ralske. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission 2

Here's another one guys. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi FoCuSandLeArN! Sorry for the late reply. I've been away. This is a very notable singer. I can't believe we didn't have an article on her before. The draft was OK enough for article space, although it needs clean up and improvement, and I saw no reason to let it languish at AfC. I've moved it to Katarina Karnéus and tagged it for clean up. Anyone here want to have a bash? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lillian Blauvelt or Lilian Blauvelt?

I recently discovered a spelling discrepancy. The wiki article spells the name Lillian Blauvelt, but many sources appear to spell it with one l, not two. Which is correct? For the time being I created a redirect and changed the spelling to two ls at The Record of Singing article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Library of Congress says 2 L's: http://lccn.loc.gov/n97061277. Though I wouldn't call it a reliable source by itself, MusicSack lists 25 reference sources for her under her 2-L name: http://www.musicsack.com/PersonFMTDetail.cfm?PersonPK=100055830 -- kosboot (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's an image of her autograph. Two L's. I'd say that was definitive. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Katija Dragojevic

I believe the Katija Dragojevic article should belong to the WikiProject Opera. If this is correct, how do I go about adding this article (or other similar articles that I find that are not already included)? Andersneld (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andersneld, yes, she's definitely in the project's scope. I've added the banner. In future, you should add {{Opera|class=}} to its talk page if article's in our scope. You can leave the class parameter blank for someone else to assess. Or, you can fill it in with stub, start, C, or B. More about asssessment here and more about the project's scope here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cycle category

As people here may have noticed, I do a lot of categorizing in the opera and Shakespeare projects, and it's occurred to me that it might be a good idea to have a category for the Ring Cycle that would hold the operas, articles on their composition (which we have), and other closely related articles. (I was inspired for this when putting something else in "Category:Operas set in fictional, mythological and folkloric settings" and thinking "wouldn't it be nice if the Ring operas were in their own subcategory here.") What do you all think? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a navbox - and it's actually not that large (suggesting a category would not be that useful). Why do you think a category would be more helpful than the navbox? -- kosboot (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Question about eligibility of recordings

Wikipedia has very strict rules about plagiarism from sources (the edit box is headed 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted') and also has a rigorous process about uploading images for use in articles.

I have noticed that increasingly opera articles are listing 'recordings' which are either copies of commercial recordings presumably still in copyright and/or unofficial copies from radio or other sources where copyright may be an issue. We cannot deny that these exist but given Wikipedia supposed rules about plagiarism and copying, should they be listed in articles alsongside bona fide recordings, and for radio recordings would it not be better to list them as broadcasts? |(The issue of the quality of these recordings and their documentation is a separate matter, too). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cg2p0B0u8m, this is a perennial problem and we have guidance on it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats#Sections:
private or "bootleg" recordings should not be listed in this section unless they have been subsequently released under a reasonably well-known commercial label, e.g. Naxos Historical, Opera d'Oro, Myto, Testament Records, or Marston Records. It is recommended that where possible references be provided for listings such as their appearance in books such as The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Disc‎.
See also this discussion which led to the guidance. Unfortunately, the guidance is often ignored. I remove pirates whenever I find them, and I suggest other editors to the same. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this clarification and the guidance reference. I see you have done the two Swedish singers. I will do some operas where I have noticed this type of recording. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to re-open the discussion, but I've always thought of Myto and Opera d'Oro as pirate labels. -- kosboot (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I would consider Opera d'Oro and Myto ok, considering that you can purchase CDs from those labels at chain stores like Barnes and Noble. Once a product is widely commercially marketed it should no longer be considered a pirate recording in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Any opinions on ICA Classics as a pirate - or not? Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ICA Classics are also carried by Barnes and Noble and other chain stores. It's another widely marketed product these days. I say that it passes.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Judging from their "About us" page, I'd say they were very legitimate. They seem to be publishing the back issues from the archives of other record companies and producing their own DVDs with the cooperation of the artists/companies involved. I never edit discographies much except to remove pirates, but in my view, if a re-issue is listed from companies like ICA or Marston Records, the original recording label, media (e.g. LP, cylinder, etc.) and recording date should be listed as well. Otherwise, the discography becomes a shopping guide rather than an encyclopedic account of an artist's or a work's recording history. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Both the ICA Classics DVDs which I have give the provenance very clearly ("Licensed from") and acknowledge the sources of images etc. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: ICA Classics: Just received my '59 Callas Medea recording from them, which I saw that year after queuing up for three nights to get tickets outside the ROH. May '59 was a balmy Spring in London!! "Licensed from" - the BBC, in this case, is clearly stated. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Martti Wallén, Finnish Operatic Bass Singer

Hello, Opera fans! Is this a notable vocalist, and should this old Afc submission be rescued or let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the editor who rejected the submission states some of the reasons for not accepting, including lack of any third-party references (ideally in English: this is English WP!!) which might establish notability. Also, there are no internal wiki-links. Take a look at the organization of a typical article and see how it could be restructured to fit the guidelines (plus - cover those bare URLS with some explanation of what they are about.) Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know how to do the formatting and wikifying, but didn't want to take the time if the singer was non-notable; it looks as though references if any may not be in English. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I've added 2 references, cleaned it up (minimally) and have moved into article space at Martti Wallén. He's clearly notable. I've tagged the article for more clean up, but there's nothing fatally wrong with it as it stands now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again, Voceditenore. Although I am a musician, I don't know much about opera; the closest I have come to it is my participation as a mandolinist in the film Rigoletto... in Bluegrass. Now if the text had said that he performed at the Grand Ole Opry.... —Anne Delong (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I added some wikilinks and removed the "dead end" tag. Couldn't find his name in any other articles, so it's still an orphan. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Casa Ricordi

Given that Ricordi is a major publishing house of operatic scores, librettos, etc., I thought I might point out that the article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2009. This would make a good article for the project to work on improving. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I've corrected/updated the ext. links to Ricordi which have material in English, as well as adding the Ricordi article from Grove under "Source". This will provide some good, citable info. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
People may want to consult IMSLP's page on Ricordi: http://imslp.org/wiki/Ricordi -- kosboot (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
At this point, it's more-or-less finished, unless I come across some additional sources. Can't find much on Bellini's nor Donizetti's relationship with the company. Gossett 2006 was an excellent source. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Lovely job! The company should be proud! :) -- kosboot (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, excellent work Viva-Verdi! You should go for a DYK nom for 5x expansion.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Ditto from me. Bravo!! Unfortunately, the deadline has passed for a DYK nomination, as it it has to be within 5 days of the expansion starting, not ending. :( DYK can be a mixed blessing, though, (apart from the vandalism, e.g. [1], and/or pointless edits, e.g. [2], resulting from the article's exposure on the main page). For one thing, you end up having to move refs all over the place to get it to pass. DYK insists that every single paragraph in the article has at least one inline citation, not just the material in the hook. And the hook. Geeesh! Template:Did you know nominations/Cyberiada (opera) gives an idea of the contortions now required. I never nominate articles I've written for DYK now. But I'm happy to nominate them for others if they want. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Falstaff (opera)‎ up for peer review for eventual FA nomination

Hi all. Just thought I would point out that User:Tim riley and User:Viva-Verdi have requested a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Falstaff (opera)/archive1 if you care to comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Category proposal

How would you all feel about a new category for conductors known for their association with opera? I was thinking Category:Opera conductors. Of course there is already Category:Music directors (opera), but to me that implies something different. For example, the Met has one music director but multiple conductors on staff. What do you all think?4meter4 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any conductor who solely does opera? I don't think so. -- kosboot (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, we have Category:Opera directors (many of whom also direct stage plays and even films) ditto Category:Opera designers (scenographers and costume designers), so there is a precedent, and I suspect there are quite a few conductors who have specialised almost exclusively in opera. The trouble is, what do you do with ones who are pretty much equally known for symphonic and opera conducting like Solti, Karajan, or Muti? Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand we have Category:Ballet conductors, some of whom have clearly been more than just ballet conductors, e.g. George Georgescu. I suspect if we create Category:Opera conductors, we'd also need to create Category:Symphony conductors with all three types under the super category Category:Conductors (music). That way, people who are known for both opera and symphonic conducting could be in both cats. Voceditenore (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think categories do necessarily have to be exhaustive or fully diffusing. There are currently several subcategories for Category:Conductors (music) which don't have fully exhaustive counterparts –Women but no men, LSO but no other orchestra, Bach but no other composer. The more intersting question to me is which composers would be excluded from such a category? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite possibly being blind, but am I correct in thinking that there is no general list of conductors that can be browsed in enWP, neither as a list (article) nor as a category? I was trying to find something out about a particular conductor and I'm not sure how the name will be transliterated into English. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Scarabocchio. It's at Category:Conductors (music). Apparently, just naming the category "Conductors" would have been ambiguous. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's not the problem, Voceditenore ... we are talking opera conductors here, beings who come from anywhere, work anywhere, perhaps as music directors for years. Summing the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century conductors gets us about 230 in total, so the only possible approach is having a stab at a few possible nationalities and grazing up and down the conductor-by-nat trees with my fingers crossed that there's a page in the first place. Is there a better way that I have missed? Scarabocchio (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Alas, no. I must say that I find the ultra-fine categorization used on Wikipedia is more of a hindrance than a help. This is a classic example. That's why long ago the OP insisted that all operas go in Category:Operas in addition to their sub-cats. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've created a working list of some 3500 composer articles in my sandbox by cutting and pasting the links from the 80 pages of composers by nationality (yawn). I started to convert it into a sortable table but just being able to search a single list is all I need at the moment. If anyone is interested in doing something with this, let me know before I clear it down. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi Scarabocchio. I think you meant a list of conductors. Anyhow, that's really useful to have! If you don't want to keep it permanently in your sandbox, I could move it to a sub-page of WikiProject Opera. Just let me know. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Conductors? .. Oh dear, apparently I turned off more of my brain that I thought. That list has a lot of band-leaders and non-classical musics -- there must be some way of getting a list that is rather more concentrated on opera. If we could get hold of lists of conductors' names from live opera performances and from opera recordings, and filter against this list, it would give a more focussed (=useful) resource. I've checked Gramophone's website and the Gramofile has gone (definitively). Operone (though appallingly inaccurate in several ways) does mark Dirigent(in) in its list of "singers". Let me know if you want me to go ahead and start on that, as I don't want to cause any more damage to the brain ... unless it's useful :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
PS. Obviously, this question isn't just for Voceditenore but 4meter4, kosboot, Michael Bednarek and anyone else with an idea on the subject! Scarabocchio (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Other than my statement above I was going to stay out of this, because I feel WP goes about categories the wrong way. Conductors should be enough. I really believe that every conductor conducts opera--it's called experience, and unless you do it, you can't really be a decent conductor. So every conductor is an opera conductor - so then what's the point of a new category of which probably fits with ~90% of existing conductor articles? -- kosboot (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with kosboot. I don't think we need or should have a separate one for opera conductors for the reasons he outlined and those I think Michael was hinting at with his question "Who would be excluded?". I guess the real problem that Scarabocchio was highlighting is that Category:Conductors contains a lot of band leaders and it could be useful to have a list or (possibly?) a category exclusively for conductors of classical music. Maybe a list would be better. Categorization makes my head ache :). Speaking of which, there is currently a discussion here re splitting Category:Opera by nationality to Category:Opera by country. Voceditenore (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Leggiero

Just want to double-check with you folks before I edit, since it seems incredibly odd that this hasn't been fixed already. Here: leggiero tenor and here: Tenore di grazia I am finding the spelling "leggero". The correct spelling is leggiero, right? J. Van Meter (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi J. Van Meter, "leggiero" is simply an obsolete form of "leggero". I suspect the reason the obsolete form appears most often in writings about the tenor voice (or music) in English is that they are ultimately based on 19th century (or earlier) earlier writings and scores. Interestingly, the Oxford Dictionary of Music uses "leggero" and states that the spellings "leggiero" and "leggieramente" are "still found in the scores of ill-informed composers and publishers." Rodolfo Celletti, who wrote Voce di tenore (no relation), uses "tenore leggero", as does The Grove Book of Opera Singers. Frankly, I'd change all the instances of "leggiero" to "leggero" and if necessary, at Tenor#Leggero tenor put in parentheses that "leggiero" is the obsolete form of the word but still found some sources. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating. So very glad I asked. Thanks for the clarification. J. Van Meter (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Z-man. I've always found your service very useful. I did notice one quite strange anomaly this time. John Shaw (baritone), an article about a relatively obscure Australian baritone, has suddenly appeared as #4 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Popular pages with allegedly 64,328 total page views and an average of 2075 a day. I cross-checked at stats.grok which shows an average of 4-5 views per day, about what I'd expect for an article like this, apart from January 27, 28, 29, 30, 2014, when it had over 12,000 view a day. However, I think this probably came from people mistakenly going to that article instead of John Shaw (broadcaster). A tribute to him was broadcast on the BBC that week. All the other articles on the list are about in the position where I would expect them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
If it appears in both sets of stats (mine and grok.se), then it's probably a real spike in views. Other John Shaw articles show a similar spike - [3], [4], [5]. Though strangely enough, the disambiguation page doesn't. Whether it's from people who were legitimately confused or some sort of broken web crawler is unknown. Mr.Z-man 16:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
User talk:Mr.Z-man just let me know that the new search tool is now up and running. Here is an example:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/popularpages/graph.php?title=Maria+Stuarda&start=Dec12&end=Mar14
It is for Maria Stuarda from December 2012 to March 2014. Note the incredible spike in January '13, which coincided with the worldwide telecast from the Met Opera in New York. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this merit attention?

On 7th Feb 2013 84.156.92.29 added some material about the well-known tenor Chris Merritt. A year later I arrived at the article by accident and decided to quickly tidy it a bit. A few days after, 84.156.94.201 reverted my edits without explanation, putting back all the rather unsatisfactory material. As I am not allowed to re-revert, if someone has a few minutes and is willing maybe they could have a look... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cg2p0B0u8m, I see that 4meter4 has reverted the material. I've also put the article on my watchlist and written a stern note on the article's talk page. It they repeatedly attempt to add it or other non-referenced "information", I'll take it to the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. In general, the article is quite appalling, especially the referencing. It just reminds me why I loathe working on articles about living singers. A few months ago, I spent quite a few hours cleaning up the article on Jennifer Larmore after someone with clear conflict of interest over-wrote it with this appalling version. The opening line, "Jennifer Larmore is well known for her versatility, natural beauty and stage craft" says it all. UGH! Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone cares to improve this mess of an article, I have created a list of quality sources at Talk:Chris Merritt.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to both. Although the intention of their edits is transparent, the result is counter productive... strange. I am afraid improving Mr Merritt is not at the top of my priorities at the moment as I am struggling with writing two opera articles. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the subject is finally getting the point with some help from 4meter4, but I have pointed out to the IP that in cases like this, most experienced editors are likely to restrict themselves to simply keeping the article from getting worse rather than actively improving it until the subject (or his agent) steps back from attempting to edit the article themselves. Otherwise, it's just a waste of our time. We'll see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes on Joseph Kerman

The distinguished musicologist of "shabby little shocker" fame may well have died (he was nearly 90). However, two IPs keep adding that he died yesterday, but provide no published source, and I cannot find one either. I'm at 2 reverts so could other editors keep an eye on this. We simply cannot publish this without a reference. Wikipedia is not a source of "breaking news". Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AOK. Reference found. Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest, I went onto the San Francisco Chronicle's website and checked the obits back to 31 December. I was surprised that there was nothing there.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think he died yesterday, so that's not surprising. Even UC Berekeley hasn't updated his page yet. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Given his reputation, I think most places are waiting to come out with lengthy obits. -- kosboot (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Sad news; one of the best teachers I ever had. I believe he died on the 17th (according to posts at the AMS website -- not sure if we should use that as a RS though). Antandrus (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Joseph Kerman, musicologist, critic, cultural shaper, dies", by Joshua Kosman, March 19, 2014. San Francisco Chronicle provides this brief (for non-subscribers) obit confirming his death on 17 March. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the naming of Tom Jones (Philidor) and Tom Jones (German), and a concern regarding WP:NCOPERA

To whom this may concern,

I recently ran across an issue where I noticed that there might have been some confusion when it came to the disambiguators in two opera-related article titles. When I was doing some edits on articles related to the page Tom Jones, I noticed that there were two operas listed on that page; Tom Jones (Philidor) and Tom Jones (opera). To me, not being familiar with either opera, and seeing that there has not been any previous discussions to establish a primary topic of the two titles, I set out to give both titles a name that could distinguish them both individually.

Somewhere during this time, I found the existence of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas). This page is rather vague in how to handle a article naming situation such as the one I ran across with the "Tom Jones" operas. There is a line in the guideline regarding disambiguation of titles that is a bit unclear regarding article title disambiguation:

If there are two (or more) operas with the same title, the second (and subsequent) works take the name(s) of the composer(s) in parentheses, so for example Otello (Rossini) is differentiated from the more famous opera of Verdi which is simply Otello.

With the way that this guideline is currently worded, the reader essentially has to assume what the "second" and "subsequent" works refer, and does not assess any primary topic guidelines in the least. I had to assume that "subsequent" refers to when the operas were created chronologically, even though that is not mentioned in the naming guideline. However, since I was not sure of this, I renamed Tom Jones (opera) to Tom Jones (German), essentially to have both titles disambiguated, as well as the fact that the aforementioned opera was created second chronologically. (Afterwards, I made Tom Jones (opera) redirect towards the disambiguation page.) If this guideline holds true, that means that Tom Jones (Philidor) should be renamed Tom Jones (opera); however, doing so seems more like an assessment of which title is the primary topic, and the guideline that I quoted does not account for the fact that the primary topic is currently a disambiguation page.

I'm in belief that the guideline needs to be rewritten to accommodate for further title disambiguation, and I'm hoping to get some feedback from members of this project for some input/feedback (before I start boldly updating the guideline with some of the details I have stated). Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Tom Jones (Philidor) needs to be moved. It might be better to use an example where the opera is spelled with an h: Macbeth, Macbeth (opera), Macbeth (Bloch), Macbeth (Sciarrino). In this case it's fairly clear that Verdi's work is primary (instead of merely 'first' by accident of article creation order) and that there might exist some unmusical reader who is less confused by (opera) than by (Verdi). In general though, I prefer title (composer) (you'll find some discussion in the archives). Movies used [years to dab long before WP, but this is problematic in opera, where there are often delays between composition and staging, and where dates are sometimes unknown. Even in film there are cases like Macbeth (1909 film), but for operas it would be quite feasible to use Otello (Verdi opera), Otello (Rossini opera). Sparafucil (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think WP:NCOPERA needs to be rewritten, but I do think that moves like this from Tom Jones (opera) to Tom Jones (German) ought to be discussed with the relevant project before the event. I understand the naming guideline to refer to the sequence in which Wikipedia articles are written when it talks about the 2nd and subsequent articles, the assumption being that the more notable works get their articles first. It doesn't really matter all that much because of REDIRECTs, but in this particular case, the result of Tom Jones (German) is particularly unfortunate and should be reversed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in this case the composer's last name has made the title very confusing. Edward German is hardly a household name, and people are bound to interpret the disambiguator (German) as meaning in the German language or a person named Tom Jones who is a German. Tom Jones (German opera) is equally confusing. Having said that. If Tom Jones (Philador) had been created first, we would still have that problem if we followed our current naming guidelines. However, I'm not convinced that this outlying case requires a complete re-write of the current guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
FWIW I created the page about the Philidor opera. At the time I'm sure there was some discussion about moving the Edward German opera and creating a disambiguation page, but the vote went against me. It might be archived somewhere (it was back in 2007). --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it's more a case of I couldn't be bothered to do it [6]. But I think my suggestion that it should be "Tom Jones (Edward German)" not "Tom Jones (German)" was a good one. --Folantin (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A move to Tom Jones (Edward German) would be consistent with Coronation March (Edward German). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the "German" disambiguator could cause some confusion. Per some of the responses in this section, I went ahead and moved Tom Jones (German) to Tom Jones (Edward German). If there is a concern regarding this, I am open to having this move be reverted. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
En passant, the use of years in disambiguation for opera is of very low value, as very few people outside musicology will have much idea of the date of a work (unless it's to disambiguate two works from different centuries. Consider the adaptions of Strindberg's Miss Julie: "1951 film, 1965 opera, 1977 opera, 1999 film, After Miss Julie, Julie (2005 opera), 2014 film", and compare with "1951 film, 1965 opera (Rorem), 1977 opera (Alwyn), 1999 film, After Miss Julie, Julie (2005 opera, Boesmans), 2014 film". Frankly, I only left the years in for continuity, as I consider them pointless. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Opera articles from Wikipedia and the Royal Opera House

I had heard about some sort of meeting which took place last year with the ROH and some Wikipedia editors, but did not know what exactly it was about. After sending Mike Gibb of Operabase some information on a couple of rare operas to be presented in Berkeley, California in the coming months and, at the same time, mentioning some of my Wikipedia activity, I received a video link from him which includes a presentation at the ROH by Rob Grieg who is in charge of technological development for the house.

Here it is, along with some notes from Mike Gibb: "Here's the video of his 30 minute presentation to the UK's Opera and Music Theatre Forum (made during last year's Tête à Tête Festival in London): http://vimeo.com/72192806#t=5918s His presentation begins at 1.38.38. He starts on 'innovation using open data and collaborative working' at 1.46.40. Wikipedia comes in at 1.55.47 to around 1.57.00"

When Rob Grieg talks about Wikipedia, he seems to imply that it is ROH which is doing updates on opera articles, and he mentions Tosca as an example. Is WP Opera in any way involved with this? I certainly think that this is an excellent idea, and I've done significant updates to articles on Belisario and L'assedio di Calais prior to their being presented in the UK in the past couple of years. Actually, I was also prompted to work on the Les vêpres siciliennes article when I saw the link to it on the ROH website. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not an excellent idea, if it's like anything I've seen. All anyone potentially from the ROH has done for Tosca is to add this spam which was reverted. Rob Grieg's presentation was about how they were seeking to leverage Wikipedia's search engine position to get news about their productions out—not to contribute in any meaningful way. This may now explain why a whole slew of poorly referenced stubs e.g. Jihoon Kim, (all sourced solely to the ROH website) were created for just about every singer on this season's roster (no matter how minor) and seemingly for every single cast member of their February revival of Turandot, e.g. David Butt Philip. Surprise, surprise, they were all created just as the Turandot production opened and contained a superfluous link masquerading as a "reference" to this, which looks mightily like paid-editing too boot. UGH! Take a look here, 18 opera singer articles created by the same editor between 24–26 February. Click on the articles. It soon becomes obvious what I'm talking about. Voceditenore (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, Viva-Verdi, I didn't look far enough back in Tosca's article history. Someone from the ROH "digital media team" did work on the synopsis for Tosca back in September 2012 as well as on several other opera and ballet synopses up until February 2013. (They were all for the works that figured in the ROH's 2012/2013 season.) The Tosca synopsis was expanded with a lot more detail. Although there were some disagreements as to whether that amount of detail was necessarily a good thing, the expansion pretty much stayed. See Talk:Tosca. The ROH initiative was mentioned here in January 2013, when it had almost finished. See archived discussion. None of that editor's additions during that period were spam, and she had nothing to do with the recent Turandot singer bio stubs, about which I remain deeply suspicious. Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much Viva-Verdi for posting that -- it was a serious come-down to read Voceditenore's response and be reminded of some of the edits I have seen recently. A few of those this-artist-singing-in-an-ROH-production micro-stubs have poked me in the eye and I think that WP would be better off without them. The earlier work from the retired(?) OperaBalletRose looks more in keeping (though hardly a game changer), and the edits on Tosca seem unobjectionable. Perhaps Tim riley and Andrew Gray, involved in the ROH editathon(?) could have another word? Scarabocchio (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Alas, the ROH bash organised by Andrew was to do with ballet (specifically the works of Frederick Ashton) and not opera. It was a hugely enjoyable and productive event, but not, I fear, relevant in diesen heil'gen Hallen. Tim riley (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
From memory, Rose (ie OBR) has now left the ROH to go elsewhere - I think she left just after our event last year. She was responsible for a few expanded synopses etc (as with Tosca above) but I think the performer stubs are a new thing. Unfortunately, I've no ongoing contact with anyone there... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's quite possible that the slew of Turandot cast sub-stubs was not directly related to the ROH's in-house media team, but what particularly raised my suspicions was the use of a link to their Turandot production page as an extra reference, when it didn't mention the singer at all, and the timing of the articles. Some of the ones created are notable, e.g. Donald Maxwell (baritone), and in fact another editor stepped in and expanded it, although virtually all the references are still primary. However, there are several singers amongst those stubs who have had no significant career yet. They're still in the ROH Young Artists Programme and so far have appeared in only very minor roles. I'm about to be off travelling for three weeks, so I just let them be for now, apart from tagging them all for primary sources, removing the CITESPAM, and fixing the cats. Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw Grieg's piece as partly not needing to create material which exists elsewhere on their website. But thanks for all this input, details of which I know nothing about. I think that what I was referring to as a good idea was some sort of collaboration - which I thought might have been started with the ROH. Knowing what English Touring Opera is planning for 2015 prompted my involvement with the Il furioso all'isola di San Domingo article, and The Siege of Calais article was expanded considerably because I knew that they were presenting the opera last year, and I made a point of being in England to see it. The same goes with my current work on Poliuto, due for the RFH in November as Les martyrs (which I shall see) and in the Italian for Glyndebourne in 2015, which I shall certainly see. In the case of Belisario, I actually saw three people with copies of the Wikipedia article in their hands!
Do we on the Opera Project do any good, do we help companies which put on these rare pieces actually sell tickets? Who knows: however, I do know that 29,000 "hits" were recorded in January 2013 alone for the Maria Stuarda article, right around the time of the Met-in-HD transmission worldwide. When I first came across the article, it didn't even have a synopsis.......!! Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Grieg's piece was also about linking to Wikipedia articles as a way of increasing information available to their audience. The ROH links to Wikipedia for virtually all their opera production pages now (for better or worse). But according to Grieg, linking to a high traffic site like Wikipedia also makes their site rise in search engine results. Don't ask me why. What I know about SEO could fit on the head of pin. We undoubtedly do good for our readers by making all opera articles as well-written, well-referenced, and as complete as we can. However, where I think we are of the greatest service is not our coverage of the "war horses" but our coverage of rarely performed operas where it's virtually impossible to find all the information about them in one place on the internet, for free, and in English—like Viva-Verdi's work on Il furioso and Poliuto. Wexford inspired our creation of Cristina, regina di Svezia, and an upcoming performance by Lafayette Opera inspired the creation of Lalla-Roukh.
I don't care if opera houses benefit in some way too, but let's face it, the benefit is pretty much one way. The ROH is sitting on enormous amounts of archival material and illustrations which they could make available for use on Wikipedia, but they don't. They could have a dedicated contact who could help us reference articles when the relevant publications or programme notes aren't online, but they don't. The ROH initiative, which seems to have ended over a year ago, did result in a few decently expanded synopses, and that's it. Though in the case of Tosca, which was already a featured article, it wasn't really necessary, and some editors thought that adding such intricate detail was not a particular improvement.
But, onwards and upwards. Anyone up for writing a synopsis for Mariotte's Salomé or creating Cagnoni's Don Bucefalo? They'll be at Wexford next autumn SMirC-smile.svg. Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Please note my comments - plus a link - on the "Popular pages tool update" section above. If you enter Les vêpres siciliennes into the search box, you'll see a big spike in viewings of the Wiki article in October/November last when that opera was presented at the ROH.
PS: I'll have a go at the Wexford Salomé article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Kunningas Lear by Sallinen: 2 or 3 Acts?/Recordings?/Broadcasting?

Hello Friends, on trying to translate the english entry about this opera I checked out hp (http://www.musicsalesclassical.com/composer?category=Works&workid=11580) of the publisher and found the opera described as consisting of 2 Acts, opposite to the english entry here, that it does have 3 Acts. Pls drop a line concerning this! Also helpful are any info about recordings and broadcasts.Thanks!--Nolispy (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "an opera in three acts" in Kuningas Lear is an obvious mistake – the section "Synopsis" describes 2 acts, ending with Lear's death. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no commercially available recording of the complete opera. A recording of the overture (or a concert version thereof) is available as part of a 5CD box set containing the symphonies, concertos and some orchestral works. See these links: [7] and [8]. Regards. 81.83.128.157 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
apologies for my mistake. I have the opera on the computer but I think that must be recording of Swedish radio broadcast of the 2000 performance, also the overture conducted by Franck in Stockholm and Helsinki. I'm glad someone else enjoys it! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx so far, here next question: Who wrote the libretto? The finnilandian wikipee (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuningas_Lear_%28ooppera%29) seems to state, that it is written by some Matti Rossin?--Nolispy (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand the combination of fi:King Lear (ooppera) and fi:Matti Rossi to mean that Sallinen based the libretto he wrote on Rossi's translation of Shakespeare's King Lear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Free access to Grove online for Library Week, April 13-19

In honor of National Library Week in the US, Oxford University Press is offering free access to all online OUP products during the week of 13-19 April. The official blurb is at: http://global.oup.com/academic/librarians/national-library-week/?cc=us&lang=en& Username & password are the same: libraryweek -- kosboot (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Gospel According to the Other Mary

I started this new stub. Please feel free to add more! Bearian (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional literature featuring opera

If anyone would like to join in for or against. -- kosboot (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Free accounts at Oxford University Press including Grove Music Online

Oxford University Press have offered the use of 150 accounts with access to several of their humanities databases. This is part of a pilot program with the Wikipedia Library; if successful, it may be expanded to other resources, and extended. The pilot will run from May 2014 to May 2015.

The OUP Humanities Package comprises:

More details and sign-up at Wikipedia:OUP. Hurry up, folks! :) – Voceditenore (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is for people outside the UK. If you already have (or could have) free access through your local library scheme (ie anyone in the UK), then you will not be eligible. The other conditions are listed at the page provided by Voceditenore. Scarabocchio (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Does have anything to do with JSTOR? I've been on that list for 18 months or more with no word one way or another...... Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Not directly, but both are Foundation initiatives under The Wikipedia Library. Apparently the free one-year Jstor subscriptions (due to end at the beginning of March) have been extended until May 2014, pending further discussion/negotiation. I'm hoping they extend beyond that. Mine has been invaluable. Voceditenore (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mozart's death discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in this section. Members' input there would be appreciated. The discussion concerns the content of the article's section Final illness and death. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of 'numbers' throughout opera articles

I hope I'm not intruding too much here (obviously I'm not a member of your group) but after impulsively trying to clarify a couple of things in separate articles, I discovered this main talk page.

Here's the problem: all the articles about individual arias and other forms of song use the term, 'number', as taken from American musical theatre. There's even a whole page saying what a 'number' is.

I'm not disagreeing with what a number is, but pretending that all English speaking cultures use that term is very inaccurate. It's just not used here in Australia, and I suspect it's not used in Britain either - and not only not used, but spurned. A great many practitioners would be highly embarrassed to use the term in anything but the most casual and joking way; some of the young ones might use it casually in rehearsal. It just wouldn't be used formally.

I get that you've put a lot of time and effort into the writing, but it's like having a wikipedia article headed 'Fannies', which means 'derriere' in American English but is a much more private woman's anatomical part in British and Australian English. Sometimes the two Englishes are worlds apart.

For such a technical and professionally edited set of pages, with finely tuned sensitivity about meanings, is this what you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenny MacKinnon (talkcontribs) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." See WP:ENGVAR for more detail. To over-generalize, one can use any variety of English spelling and usage so long as it's consistent. -- kosboot (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There's not only the article "Number (music)", but also significantly Number opera. The term is well established, even in Australia, for the totality of arias, duets, ensemble pieces, choruses, overtures, entr'actes, and whatever makes up an opera and is usually found numbered in the printed score's table of content. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edith Kertész-Gabry

Hello opera fans! Here's an abandoned AfC submission that may be of interest to this project. Is this a notable subject, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stsle draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. She's definitely notable. The draft appears to be a translation of de:Edith Gabry. I've added a couple more references, and I note that she also has an entry in the Großes Sängerlexikon. I don't have access to that work, but the article gives the volume and page numbers. I'd go ahead and move it to article space where it will have a much greater chance of further improvement. Voceditenore (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore. It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Pop singers

Just wondering, do people here occasionally have a look at the articles of popular singers from the world of pop music? I just noticed that Nicole Scherzinger#Musical style and voice makes such claims as "Scherzinger is classified as a lyric coloratura soprano with a three octave vocal range and a whistle register that stretches up to a G#6" or "Scherzinger is also a classically trained opera musician", based on ... what exactly? No more than fan-tasy [sic], apparently; certainly not reliable sources. (Although you'd think that some halfway decent sources would exist on famous pop singers.) I'm neither a follower of mainstream pop musicians nor a connoisseur of opera, but I harbour a keen interest in (mostly underground-ish) classical–rock/pop crossovers such as symphonic and progressive rock, where many quite skilled musicians are active, not infrequently with some fairly advanced traditional training, so I'm well aware of the difference between a real opera singer, a properly (classically) trained vocalist and a pop musician with some traditional but not that profound vocal training, so it bugs me when people equate musicals like Webber's "Phantom" with opera and a performance like Madonna's in "Evita" with operatic singing. And neither Madonna or Sarah Brightman, whatever their merits, should be described in terms derived from opera (such as operatic fachs – there's a reason we have Voice classification in non-classical music), and it's jarring and embarrassing to see this in articles because it makes Wikipedia into a vehicle of pretentious but clueless fan-speak not even informed on the most superficial level. Would be nice if some opera buffs could have an eye on this issue. I don't like to see Wikipedia abused to spread disinformation, even if it's not one of the more pressing issues. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gads, 289 footnotes! (I see you probably were the one who added the "citation needed" template - which cites an advertisement as the source.) It is my impression that the people who inhabit WP:OPERA are very different from those who edit articles on contemporary pop singers, so I personally would stay out of that area. -- kosboot (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
These claims sometimes come to my attention when they find their way into operatic voice categories or are being listed at Coloratura soprano and similar articles. In this case, none of her 36 categories bother me. Claims of vocal range by pop singers, especially if as banal as here for 3 octaves, also don't bother me much anymore. I think the requests for citation in Scherzinger's case are well made and might in time lead to the removal of those claims. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Florian. Pretty much what Michael said. Unfortunately, that kind of phoney voice classification is rife in pop singer articles. There was a lengthy discussion at WikiProject Musicians on the problem back in 2012. I had a look at Nicole Scherzinger. Yikes! A veritable temple of fandom! A gigantic "Legacy" section for a 35-year old? Not to mention a gigantic "Artistry" section. Voceditenore (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
PS I once saw a WP article about a heavy metal singer (can't remember which one) where he was described as a Kavalierbariton. {{{SIGH}}} I removed it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the alert and the pointer to the earlier discussion!
Granted, I have heard of trained opera singers (males) – who apparently were active in the profession too – who have crossed over to heavy metal, but can't remember any names. Some soprano vocalists active in metal bands are apparently working in opera houses (whether as soloist or choral singer) as a day job (most metal bands being quite underground and effectively hobbies, after all), for example Melissa Ferlaak, who has performed in several productions at the Minnesota Opera, and I seem to recall reading that Ana Mladinovici of Magica worked at the local opera theatre in Constanța, so, principally speaking, it is not completely excluded that this male metal singer could have been active in this fach ... however, I've never heard of an opera-trained singer who subsequently became known as a mainstream pop singer (as opposed to "operatic crossover" singers like Emma Shapplin who never met mainstream fame like Brightman has: an even moderately operatic vocal style is apparently almost equally extreme – even repulsive – to the majority of the population as heavy metal growls are). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe Yevgeny Nikitin started as a metal singer and is now an opera baritone. -- kosboot (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes! But I was thinking of the inverse – a legitimate opera singer crossing over to metal (possibly because he saw opera as too restrictive or had doubts about his ability to achieve a successful career in the field). A male counterpart of sorts to Ferlaak and some of the women who have worked with "opera metal" pioneers Therion (as guest singers or regular members). For example, Attila Dorn of Powerwolf is said to have had the appropriate training, but I do not know if he ever regularly performed in operas. In a case like this, a description like Kavalierbariton could make sense, especially if the man more or less retained this style in his work with the band. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Klaus Nomi may be a more interesting example. However, while he did cross over into popular music and achieved more than underground fame, he does not seem to have ever been active in traditional opera productions, so it is still debatable if a narrow fach description like Kavalierbariton (or coloratura soprano for a woman) would be appropriate in a case like his, while countertenor is not excessive. In any case, it's pretty clear that Scherzinger's or even Brightman's case is quite different. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

International Opera Awards (redlinks)

The International Opera Awards aim to reward the best of the opera world -- the top people, companies, productions, recordings, performances -- every individual and organisation at the top of their game internationally in the world of opera. One of the categories was philanthropist/sponsor. Of the remaining 19 categories, 15 were for established achievement over a period (all nominees of which I might reasonably expect to find within Wikipedia) and four which are rather more fast moving: best newcomer (conductor or director), new singer, rediscovered work and world premiere. The nominees for these last four should all be worthy of an article, but perhaps some few would be missing from Wikipedia(?)

I wikilinked the nominees and winners of the 2013 edition this morning, and found a lot more redlinks than I expected and some very surprising lacunae:

and of the faster moving:

NB: To preserve my sanity (and will to live), I am not watching ANY pages that touch on the infobox holy wars (including this one). For any feedback on the above, please go to the article talk page. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

List edited to remove Dmitri Tcherniakov (found under Dmitry Chernyakov). Scarabocchio (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaflet For Opera At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Le magazine de l'opéra baroque

It appears that the prolific author of Le magazine de l'opéra baroque, and the websites http://operabaroque.fr and http://livretsbaroques.fr has decided on a name change. Previously given (and extensively linked from Wikipedia) as Jean-Claude Brenac, these websites and the linked books now give the author as Claude-Jean Nébrac. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for guidance on Handel opera articles

I have been trying to improve the articles on Handel operas, many of which have been in a very inadequate state in my opinion, and will probably continue to do more and want to make sure I am not doing wrong things so I have a few questions.

  • I like the sections to go "lead, background, roles, synopsis, musical features, reception and performance history,recordings, external links" in that order. Is that OK?
  • "Performance history" for all of these many works basically goes "so many performances in the first run, Handel revived it (or not) in this year and in that, then nobody put it on for about two hundred years, nowadays it is likely to be performed just about anywhere." Handel operas typically have six singers, no chorus and rather small orchestras so can be put on at small scale festivals as well as famous opera houses, even the most obscure ones have been put on in all sorts of places now, who can keep up with that? and is it really very interesting? some of the articles have what seems to be rather random mention of a production that just seems to have caught the attention of whoever put it in the article, my inclination is to cut it out and just say "no one did it at all between 1732 and 1924, or whatever, now, like all Handel operas, it receives performances at opera houses and festivals" (citing a source). Is that OK?
  • Some of the articles have unsourced sections "Notable arias" which just look like personal favourites of whoever put that in the article to me. Is it OK to remove sections like that? All the arias in all of Handel's operas are notable if you ask me.
  • Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, thanks for your work on these article although, as I've previously pointed out some of the formatting issues, which are illustrated below, to you before this, here is the Project's article layout format.Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats
For some reason, many editors of Handel articles seem to have gone their own way on this.
This all comes from the Project page. Hope it helps. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Formatting guidelines for sections and dates

Sections

For stub and start class articles:

Introduction
also called "Lead section"
name, language, composer, librettist, general historical and musical context
==Performance history== from premiere(s) to the present day
==Roles== possibly in tabular form giving name, description, voice type and creator of each role; see Role tables below.
==Synopsis== including noted arias formatted as in Un ballo in maschera, without title translation, or Turandot, with title translation
==Recordings== divided into audio and video (with catalogue numbers when possible). It is recommended that where possible references be provided for listings such as their appearance in books such as The Penguin Guide to Opera on Compact Disc‎. It is also recommended that extensive recording lists should be made as separate pages. See Tosca discography for a model. For guidance on which recordings to exclude see Article guidelines#Recordings.
==Sources== printed (including ISBN when possible) and online works (including access date)
==External links== for online resources providing extra information not included in the article and/or official web sites. See WP:EL for further guidance.

For articles that are aiming at either good article or featured article status, the following extra sections are recommended:

Provides full details of the sources used for the article, with ISBNs where possible
==Context and analysis== Puts the work in context and provides a certain degree of sourced analysis.
==Recording history== Recommended for particularly well-known operas (and articles on specific composers).
==References== This becomes the main heading of the section embracing "Notes", "Cited Sources", "Online sources" and "Other sources".

These sub-sections have now become standardized in bold and appear as: Cited sources , etc.

Notes in boldface Footnotes for inline citations depending on which citing format is being used.

Two or more sections will be created with footnotes appearing under the main heading, "References". "Notes" may just include author, page number where full ref. exists below. For further details, see: Shortened footnotes.

Dates (general)

Opera articles use the Day-Month-Year format for indicating the dates of premieres, performances, etc.

Amadeus Almanac

What has happened to the Amadeus Almanac? It looks as though a lot of our links to this database may be broken, e.g., "Louis+Gueymard" www.amadeusonline.net. (Maybe I'm missing something?) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! They have completely revamped their site to show only the almanac for the current day with no link to almanac itself. My initial reaction was "Che disastro totale!". The almanac was an incredibly useful resource. I have now discovered that it is still online but at a different url.
Go to http://www.amadeusonline.eu/almanacco.php.
Having said that, the mass of broken links is still a disastro and I'm not sure how long the almanac will remain up even at the new .eu domain SMirC-sad.svg. Voceditenore (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this has been a very important resource for the project. Fortunately the search strings seem to be unchanged. Updating all of these links to the new root will be tedious, unless we can somehow use a bot. Update: I tried modifying the link at Louis Guéymard. Apparently all that needed to be change was "amadeusonline.net" to "amadeusonline.eu" --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
We should switch to using templates for this sort of thing. If the domain changes, but the site structure remains the same, all of the links could be fixed by editing a single line in the template. I'll look into it. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I did a search on Google with "amadeusonline.net" site:en.wikipedia.org. There were "About 308 results". Not sure how accurate Google's search engine is. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me what the Amadeus Almanac is and why it is listed as a source or reference for numerous Handel opera articles? I clicked on it and could not see any relevance to the article on a Handel opera I was revising so I took it out.Smeat75 (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Smeat. Its a searchable almanac and is useful for premiere dates and casts as well as records of other performances of a particular opera, composer, singer etc. It's particularly useful for rarely performed operas in Italy and France and often provides information about the conductor, set designer, libretto sources, etc. as well. You can search either by a specific date or for all dates containing the search term. (There's a bit more about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Online research#General resources.) It's part of the website of Amadeus, a long-running Italian print classical music magazine. See the bottom of this page for the sources used to compile the almanac. Because it can provide a quick basic reference, it was (and is) often used here for stub articles and has remained in many cases even when they have been greatly expanded. If it has no information beyond what any of the other references in the article provide, then feel free to remove it. I find that people often don't format the ref properly to indicate what it is, i.e. they put simply Amadeus Almanac. I use:
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Voceditenore and I had not seen that "general resources" list either, very useful.Smeat75 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: I don't think it is ever a good idea to delete a source that an editor has used to add information to an article. And this is a particularly useful source. The fact that the links now appear "irrelevant" is only because the url for the database has changed. These urls should be fixed, not deleted. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smeat and Robert. If it has been used as an inline citation and has been replaced by a better one, I see nothing wrong with removing it. But here's a prime example where it should not have been removed: Alessandro (opera). The Amadeus entry (amended url) has the premiere cast and was obviously used to source the Roles section, including the relatively minor roles, albeit without an inline citation. The role table currently has no inline citation and a source which could have provide it has now been removed. Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was the occasion I meant when I said I clicked on it and couldn't see what it had to do with Alessandro as it went to a page with "what happened on this day in music history" in Italian and a lot of ads so I took it out. I have put it back with your amended url although it is not necessary for the role table as The Handel Institute has a site with all the singers in Handel's works in his lifetime so far as is known which I have added as a citation in the role table. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I probably overstated it. Should have said "rarely a good idea". There have been occasions when I've moved it to external links and used a libretto for the citation that differed in some details. Still, librettos are often printed before the performance, and there may have been changes, which are documented elsewhere, like in a review. I do remember once tho that Amadeus listed a singer that had, per other sources, already died. Almost all sources probably have a few errors especially when they cover a lot of territory, like Casaglia's database. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Schubert - Die Verschworenen D.787

I am currently assembling the material to write an article on this opera. However I have stumbled across a question relating to the performance history that I do not have the material to resolve, yet. According to one source the score was printed in 1862 following the intial 1861 performances in Vienna (Concert) and Frankfurt(Staged). Apparently the first performance in the United States took place in March of 1863 at a theater in Hoboken, New Jersey (My source is a copy of Maurice J.E. Brown's, Schubert: A Critical Biography dating from 1958). Sadly he only mentions it in a footnote and I've not been able to trace this further. It would be most helpful if someone could find a reliable source as to who arranged the performance, which theater it took place in and whether it was a Concert performance or a Staged performance.

Also in the review linked to below it is claimed that the Opera was performed in private sometime between 1823 and 1861, but I've been able to locate no confirmation on this. If anyone can advise as to a source I would be greatful.

Franz Schubert: The Conspirators (Die Verschworenen)

Graham1973 (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graham1973. Re the private performance see footnote 55 on p. 95 of The Unknown Schubert. If you can't access that page, let me know and I'll type out what it says. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham1973. Me again re the Hoboken performance...
From Dwight's Journal of Music (April 4, 1863) here (Note the text below is OCR'd from the page image, so use the page image to cross check)
The Concordia, a German singing society in Hoboken, have recently performed a little opera by Franz Schubert: "The Conspirators, or the Domestic Strife." It is the first operatic work of Schubert ever attempted in this country. The Musical Review says of it:
The opera was written in 1819, when Schubert was but 23 years old. No doubt the work itself gives unmistakable sign of the youth of the composer. Those riches of modulation, those traits of originality, with whicn his later works aoonnd, are not to be "found in the score. Everything is simple, very intelligible and often by no means peculiarly Schubertish. For instance, the song-writer Schubert, as ho is known to the present generation, will be scarcely recognized. With exception of the romance of the Countess in F minor and the first part of the Duo between Adolf and Helene in B flat, there can be hardly in the whole score traced anything, which might point to the manner and the turns of melody we find for instance in his songs. Yet the music is much more modern, than most of the music of this style was, composed forty and fifty years ago. One can tiike the comic operas of the German composers of that time, and one can easily see, how independent Schubert appears in spite of his twentythree years. Besides there aro scarcely any songs in the opera. The choruses, the ensembles, form the chief features of the work, and these in some instances are of an irresistible charm, as for instance the welcome chorus of the women, in C. The conipiration scene is also of good effect, especially the concluding Andantino in D. Of excellent and even dramatic effect are the two Ariettas by the Count nnd the Countess, the one in A, the other in C, although in the mniu features the same music. The finale, too, offers some excellent music, but here the want of really dramatic progression is felt most. The music does not reach its climax, on the contrary it loses its interest. It is true this is partially caused by the libretto (by J. F. Castelli) but on the whole this libretto is better than the majority of text-books of this class, especially of an older period of operatic art. With a few cuttings and alterations the little opera could be made very effective, especially on a large stage, and with the help of the orchestra, the treatment of which, to judge from the Piano-score, must be occasionally quite interesting. But even without these accessories and alterations the operetta has proved quite attractive, as all those can testify, who witnessed the performance in Hoboken. The scenery worked well, the costnmcs were very appropriate and pretty and everything was neat and acceptable. The choruses, some of which are by no means easy, were creditably snng, and the soloists, Miss Ludecus, Messrs. Urchs and Schoenfeldt, and two or three others, whose names we could not nscertain, gave general satisfaction. We need simply add that Mr. Timm was at the piano (one of Steinway's Grands) to satisfy our readers, that the accompaniment was in the right hands. The performance was preceded by the overture to "Euryanthe," rendered by Messrs. Timm and H. Branrkhunsen.
We understand that the opera will be repeated for the benefit of Mr. Serge, the conductor, to whose energy and zeal the bringing out of the work is chiefly due.
From Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (27 May 1863) here :
Ein deutscher Gesangverein in Hoboken (Amerika) hat vor Kurzem zweimal Schuberts Operette «Die Verschworenen« aufgeführt; vorher wurde die Euryanthe-Ouvertüre gespielt. Das Werk selbst wurde in 2 Akten gegeben und die Hauptdarstellerin sang als Einlage die Cdur-Arie der Gräfin aus »Figaro's Hochzeit« (!). (Google translation)
If you Google "Concordia Singing Society" Hoboken, there's probably more about them out there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that. It gives me a good run of opinion on the music as I now have sources from 1863, 1881, 1905, 1958 and later. Still feeling my way with this one. Graham1973 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Critical edition versus Critical edition (opera)

As one can see by clicking on Critical edition, we are now being sent through a convoluted series of links in order to find (and/or read about) the meaning of a critical edition for operas. Accordingly, I've remove the text from the Historical editions article, but have left a link in place to the new article, Critical edition (opera)

I shall try to find as many opera articles as possible which link to the simple Critical edition and change them to refer to the opera article. Any additions are appreciated. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, Viva-Verdi. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel the Critical edition (opera) article should be deleted. As it stands, it's a poor article because it doesn't explain the numerous issues and appears to be just about Italian opera. The notion of what we consider today to be a "critical edition" is strongly shaped by at least 150 years of history of such editions. The main article does provide this. Why must the wheel be reinvented for opera? The main article lacks a section on issues specific to music, so I would be in favor of creating a section in that article, perhaps for eventual forking. -- kosboot (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm off to deepest darkest Tuscany in a few hours, so can't really keep up the dialogue, but why on earth should it be deleted? A need for expansion to incorporate other issues and other repertoires is certainly not a reason a delete an article. Simply improve and expand it. Besides, the fork wasn't made from Critical edition which redirects to Textual criticism, it was made from Historical editions (music) to which Historical edition redirects. I would, however, recommend that a brief summary be left in the opera section of the Historical editions (music) article and use of the {{Main}} template. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Rather than deleting the article, it can be expanded. There are critical editions not just of Italian opera "Also available at Alkor-Edition are scholarly-critical editions of major operas such as Beethoven’s Fidelio, Rossini’s Il barbiere di Siviglia, Bizet’s Carmen, Halévy’s La Juive, Dvorák’s Rusalka, Smetana’s The Bartered Bride, Gounod’s Faust, Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunow, Offenbach’s Les contes d’Hoffmann and La Belle Hélène and ballets by Tchaikovsky."[9]. I can't do it right now though, I am too obsessed with trying to improve the articles on Handel opera.Smeat75 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to just have a list of critical editions of opera, go ahead. (I also think "Historical editions" is a terrible article with the wrong title, and was probably created by someone with no idea of the field--that too should be deleted or renamed and entirely re-written.) Nearly all the significant issues in the Critical edition (opera) are covered by Textual criticism. If you know nothing about textual criticism, then yes, you'd think an article on critical editions of opera is necessary. But if you know anything about music history and repertoire beyond opera, you know that critical editions of opera are a much bigger issue than opera itself which belongs to critical editions of classical music. That in turn is only a part of the field of textual criticism. Music history shows that "historical editions of music" did not develop on their own but were an outgrowth of general textual criticism. Only after the field began did some people think to apply it to music. Then only after WW2 did people start to apply this opera. To create--and therefore isolate opera--from this context and field (without even having dealt with music) is not only provincial but intentional blindness to understanding how the field connects to cultural history. -- kosboot (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this new article needs a lot more work and considerable context. However, to have it buried inside an article which covers so much else (of relative degrees of relevance), makes little sense to me. So, have at it someone.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Carlo Bergonzi

His recent death has brought more attention to the article, including the elimination of vast swathes of personal opinion (thank goodness) but it still needs a lot of work. The referencing is dire and the ridiculous one sentence "Trivia" section needs to be incorporated into the the bio. Gramophone has an extensive feature on him this month, with free access. It's here for anyone who wants to work on the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've done enough on this for today, but have removed the more egregious aspects plus added in several supporting refs to justify the assertions. And I'm happy to read about The Gramophone article which looks worthwhile at a quick glance, especially in the area of assessment of vocal quality. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Template for Amadeus Almanacco

Looking through a score of links to the Amadeus Almanacco, it seems to be accessed in just three ways from enWP:

  • a precise date (day, month and year)
  • a text string
  • both a precise date and a text string

Can anyone see a problem/ loss of functionality if a template for accessing the Almanacco supported just these three options, plus an optional label text for the link?

I'm thinking of something like

  • {{Almanacco | dmy=05-07-1870 | text=Mignon | label=Mignon's London premiere}}

to give

At least one of dmy or text must be given. If the label is not given, it will use the search text for the link label. If there's no label and no text, you will get the date as link label. Comments, suggestions? (The template documentation is rather opaque, so don't be too ambitious :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea which, had it been implemented earlier, would have made dealing with their recent URL change much easier. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Scarabocchio. I can see how this could be very useful. However, I always include the author/compiler, Gherardo Casaglia and the date it was published online, 2005. I know a lot of other editors use kind of a haphazard description of the reference. I'd want it to look like any other reference and without the "on", e.g.
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005}. "Mignon". Almanacco Amadeus (in Italian). Retrieved 5 August 2014.
Having said that, the other info could simply be added with each footnote, in conjunction with the template for the actual entry. So I guess the only thing I'd request is removal of the "on". Best (from deepest darkest Tuscany), Voceditenore (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Michael, if I can master the writing of these, I will set up templates for other key resources. I note with horror that it was two months ago (6 June) that I first suggested taking the template path to fix the change of Almanacco addresses. (Sorry, Robert.Allen, for the delay)
Voceditenore, I was leaning away from the 2005 'publication date' as the site content runs up to March 2012, which made the 2005 date a little counter-intuitive, but I have no strong feelings (and of course it can be changed later easily). Scarabocchio (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's done!! The test data, and the resulting links are here. I'll finish the documentation, and if there are no show-stopping comments, I'll move it into template space as {{Almanacco}}. One change, more or less accidental, from what I suggest above: I've used a yyyymmdd date format rather than dd-mm-yyyy. I can change this if people prefer the other format. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's best ti use d-m-y. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I've updated everything to use the dd-mm-yyyy format. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Great work, although Wikipedia's MoS takes a dim view of your template's current date output (no ordinals, see MOS:DATEFORMAT). I suggest the general format, dd month yyyy, as returned by "{{#time:j F Y|1870-07-05}}" which gives "5 July 1870", or "{{#time:j F Y|now}}" which gives "9 December 2017". Such an approach will no doubt slim your template's code. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I consulted the MoS, but considered that this case fell under the exclusions mentioned in the first sentence: "These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles." In fact, I added the ordinals specifically to make the link look more like the title it effectively is, and less like a randomly linked item of data on the line. Compare:
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005). "5 July 1870". Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).
  • Casaglia, Gherardo (2005). "5th July 1870". Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).
The second looks fractionally more like a title to me, but I'm not going to be anal about this, and am quite happy to go with the general preference of the project. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Although in theory, using this template seems like a fine idea, I have some misgivings about how we are going to install it in the more than 500 articles that reference this database. Are we going to add it manually, or is someone going to devise a bot that will do it? If a bot, who will write the bot? A bot may be somewhat more difficult to create than the template itself. I've looked at quite a few of the articles with these links. It is my impression that although there are many, probably most, which may be relatively simple for a bot to deal with, there are some where it may not be so straight forward. On the other hand, adding it manually may be more than any one editor can easily do, but a team effort might work. I'm uncertain whether it will be worth the effort. Correcting the current links is relatively simple, but adding the template may be much more time-consuming with either approach (ie, manual vs. a bot). --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As at lunchtime today, there were 578 articles that linked to the old, broken, amadeusonline.net address. I edited around 55 of them in about 2 hours this afternoon, so I was taking about 2 minutes per article to change over to the template, test the link and save. That's a sustainable rate of working that means about 17 hours for repairing the remainder of those articles. I wasn't hugely fast because I was reading the odd synopsis, following the odd link etc, but significant time was also needed to improve the link parameters. Over half of the articles I edited were linking to a date alone (which would give a somewhat obscure list of random events that happened to fall on that specific day), rather than date plus opera name (which gives a single relevant entry). Eg: Compare the results of clicking the before and after links in this Don Giovanni edit.
Using a bot might be an attractive idea, but in many cases it just won't have the necessary information to link only to the relevant entries in the Almanacco, because it isn't available in the current link.
A second reason for converting to the template is that it isolates Wikipedia's links from the next change to the almanac. There are clearly changes happening at Amadeus .. who is to say where the almanac will be next month? Scarabocchio (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops! and the most important sentence of all: I don't mind doing 20 or so each day, so even if no-one else jumps in, all of the broken links will be repaired by the end of this month. The 400 articles already changed to amadeusonline.eu would take another 20 days after that. It's not what I would have chosen for a summer holiday, but it's do-able! Scarabocchio (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, manually seems a reasonable way to proceed. It looks like the template is ready, so nothing to stop other editors from pitching in to help. The only question, I have now is how often does Wikipedia update the search indexes? The searches may start turning up articles that have already been changed. Annoying perhaps, but not a game-changer. I think we can probably deal with that. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried adding the template to Mignon, but it took me a bit longer. Perhaps with practice, I'll get better. Also, I noticed the data are now somewhat different from when I first accessed it. The database now correctly lists Alessandro Bettini in place of his dead brother, Geremia. (I pasted the results from when I first accessed them on the talk page, just to see whether there might be some changes, and yes there has been this one.) However, Almanacco still assigns Faure to the role of Giarno, rather than Lothario. Still, that is progress! --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Loading articles which have already been changed would be annoying. I've put the current list of ~470 articles containing amadeusonline.net at User:Scarabocchio/tbd. I've used the snippet returned by the search tool to group them into articles that search on date+text, text only, date only and the rest. If anyone wants to work on this, leave a note, or remove the lines from that page. I've put the articles that use accented characters right at the end -- I'll wrestle with those. Scarabocchio (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add an optional parameter, such as "display=linkonly" or similar, that would cause the template to generate only the link portion of the current output. This would give editors the ability to format the citation in other ways, tailored to the specific context. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This shouldn't be difficult. It's already possible to control the text that appears in the link itself, using the label parameter (eg: here's an original link text that I preserved earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Le_roi_malgr%C3%A9_lui&diff=prev&oldid=620193490). I assume that you want control over the whole line, to remove the prefix "Casaglia, Gherardo (2005)." and the postfix "Almanacco Amadeus (Italian).", leaving just the link text (over which you already have control). Have I understood correctly? Scarabocchio (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, for example, "5-July-1870". Then, if it's in a note rather than the list of sources, the punctuation, and whatever, can be formatted differently. It will give editors a lot more freedom to format it differently. --Robert.Allen (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How about cases where the url is part of a Cite web template? For example, La serva padrona. Would a "display=urlonly" option work for this? --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)