Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 121

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

Archive 120 | Archive 121 | Archive 122

Archives Table of Contents

Nel cor più non mi sento

I am an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so before I make a major change to this article, I would like to solicit feedback from the folks that are most likely to have suggestions or objections. The article is in need of major revisions because it incorrectly identifies this piece as an aria rather than a duet. (I'm assuming this is based on the popular version Parisotti included in his collection.) I've prepared an accurate description of the piece, included a new translation (more word-for-word or line-by-line rather than a singable English version). The new version is over in my sandbox right now. Again, because I have only ever done very light editing before, I may not have the formatting correct, so please don't be too unkind.--LadyIslay (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


I have just heard that John Webber, known in these pages as Viva-Verdi, has died.[1] RIP. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • What terribly sad news! He has been an editor since 2005 and was one of the most active and helpful members of the Opera Project....
Va, pensiero, sull'ali dorate
Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
--Smerus (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh my gosh, what terrible news. Thank you for letting us know. Rest in Peace, and blessings and best wishes to his family. Softlavender (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Terribly missed, such an inspiration based on profound knowledge, - no wonder he never replied to my last message, - Lacrymosa, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Very sad. RIP. --Folantin (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I teared up when I saw this, and it made me think how odd to feel a connection to someone I have never met in person and whose real name I never knew until after they were gone. You will be missed Viva-Verdi. To all in this project, I am proud to have worked with you on something of value to the world and I genuinely feel real affection for all of you. As a tribute to Viva-Verdi, perhaps he left work unfinished or unposted in his sandbox which we as a project might be able to complete in his honor. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
My post there has a link to here, for the obituary. (Help me to remember to change it when this goes to the archive, please.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Voceditenore has the obituary in her opening announcement there, so don't actually need to remember it for the obituary, but you might want to keep this link for these notes of remembrance which differ from those on that page..... Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • John and I had been working on and off to upgrade the article on Falstaff with Featured Article in mind. I have now nominated it for FAC, as a valediction to a fine editor. All suggestions from Viva-Verdi's colleagues for improving it will be gladly received. Tim riley talk 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Almanacco Amadeus - Che disastro!

I knew it was only a matter of time before they monkeyed with the version. The search facility is now disabled and only renders the happenings for "today". We're back to 100s of broken links in refs. Most of the entries are available as cached versions via a Google search , e.g. [2], but I doubt if that will last long. Grrrrrr. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Well, it's not a complete disastro, just a mezzo-disastro. The search facility is back on the .net version of the site at However, the URL for the results is completely different. You cannot simply substitute .net for .eu in the old URLs. Example:

Scarabocchio, is this going to be easy to fix in your Template:Almanacco? Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done and tested. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Scarabocchio! If you hadn't spent all that time updating the old links with the new template a couple of months ago, we'd be in the proverbial soup now. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Grazie, VdT, for these words and the barnstar, but I have only updated half of the links (around 350 or so). Can I give you half a barnstar back? .. perhaps in exchange for the proverbial paddle? Scarabocchio (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Piffle! Even half the links is a huge number (the template is already transcluded in almost 200 articles). I decree that you shall keep the whole Barnstar. Now, get cracking on the rest of those links! SMirC-smile.svg. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
VdT, i vostri ordini sono deliziosi; il vostro modo di imporli ancora più amabile. Non è la prima volta, lo sapete, che rimpiango di non essere più vostro schiavo.... SMirC-smile.svg Done. Converting all of the .eu links on my list has taken us to 502 transclusions. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Verdi image project

I wanted to something in Viva-Verdi's memory, and trying to get more Verdi featured content seemed suitable. Want to commit to this here so I can't back out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

At the same time I've been looking at Giuseppe Verdi and tried to weed out some of the images which are/were cluttering the article, whilst thinking of how to move the article as a whole to GA. When you say 'Verdi image project' is this a generic move to populate/create more Verdi articles including illustrations - or do you have saomething else in mind?--Smerus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
More to provide better images for Verdi's operas, which are much less-well illustrated. Also, a lot of these are already used, but really, really badly. Have a look, for example, at the appalling crop used in Giovanna d'Arco. Edit: Not anymore. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, Adam. Another article that is a nightmare "bag of a thousand pix" is Vincenzo Bellini. A hapless editor tried to do something about it but got reverted as "vandalism " by a rather clueless ClueBot [3]. Something to keep in mind for another CoM perhaps. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: Ooh, Bellini's particularly bad as there's not even context given. E.g. "Composer Luigi Cherubini". Worse, the only mention of Cherubini in the text? "Among the many musical figures were several Italian such as Michele Carafa and the imposing Luigi Cherubini, then in his seventies." - NOTHING ELSE ABOUT CHERUBINI IS SAID IN THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. I'm honestly inclined to just strip out any image not depicting him or monuments to him, his operas, a librettist, or someone mentioned in the title of a section, and start over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: I went ahead and revised images in Vincenzo Bellini. I think it looks a lot more professional, and what images are used have impact. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much Adam. That's a huge improvement! If I stumble on any more over-pixed articles that could use your pruning shears, I'll post 'em here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
PS The images you've done so far are fab, Adam! And many thanks to Crisco 1492 who uploaded many of the originals. I've reduced the size of the gallery images, by half, as they were making the page very slow to load, and not great for small screens. But I urge everyone to click on them to see the now very impressive full-size versions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Glad to do my part, what little I can. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Composer/opera of the month

This seems to have gone dead (see top of page and click 'show')- are there any proposals forthcoming?--Smerus (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smerus. Sometimes people do make proposals. If not, I fill in the template myself shortly before the month changes with something to work on so that there's always a CoM and OoM on the main project page. See here for the current ones. (If they're showing blank just click of the "refresh" link in the template.) I try to make them related to some anniversary in that month. I'd be delighted if people were more active in filling in the proposals. Sometimes it makes my brain hurt trying to cook up something at the last minute SMirC-crazy.svg. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
OK I think part of the trouble may be that the template is in a 'click to show' format - if it was open and gaping to the four winds we (scilicet: I) who mainly look at the talk page rather than the front page perhaps would be more likely to note it and make proposals/take action on them. In the meantime I will rack my brains (such as remain) for some suggestions, and consider what I could do for June..--Smerus (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe there's an opera being resurrected for a summer festival which could serve as a focus for wiki-inspiration? - kosboot (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
June's already done and on the main project page, Smerus. We need proposals for July, August, and September. The script for the proposals was written by Adam Cuerden. It's quite ingenious. When the first of the month comes around, the proposal for that month automatically moves from here to the main page and a new proposal form automatically moves onto the talk page so that there are always forms available for the next three months. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
PS I could uncollapse the proposal forms, but they would be whopping. Maybe I'll try first reminding everyone here about filling them in each month. Voceditenore (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If I might suggest, it would be fairly easy to add a bit to the script that would put next month's proposal outside the collapse box, then have the two months after that collapsed.
As for a proposal, as you likely know, Viva-Verdi died recently. I realise that Verdi doesn't have a lot of gaps, but, given he was so active here, it may be worth doing improvement drives. Giuseppe Verdi looks to just to need some sourcing and cleanup for good article, for instance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This seems an excellent idea - at first glance btw the article is very heavily over-pictured, and will need some stripping to reach GA.--Smerus (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Inclined to agree. It also needs a bit more standardizing - the images lurch to the left and right seemingly at random, and with sizes also seemingly chosen at random. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put him in for July, and found three operas of his that are major operas and lack key sections, that would make good projects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Another idea: to the composer & opera of the month, add singer of the month. Even if not tagged, some of the singer bios are not really up to the standard of a reasonable WP article. It might be a way to help teach newbies (like the user talked about in discussions above) a different way of approaching article creation. kosboot (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that was actually the original selections (One opera, one singer), but they got switched to the current arrangement a while after this was set up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
kos and Adam, Composer of the Month, was started in 2006 and originally focused on creating articles for operas by various composers in The Opera Corpus. It now focuses on improving opera composers' biographies and the coverage of subjects related to their works. In late 2007 Singer of the Month was added and focused on creating articles for singers. Then people found it a bit too restrictive. So from January 2009, this was changed to Opera of the Month and now focuses on improving existing articles on an opera (or operas) and subjects related to them (including article creation or improvement for their role creators). The archive of all the past monthly collaborations is here. There's no reason why we couldn't sometimes focus on a single singer article to improve in the OoM and temporarily re-title it SoM, if there are people prepared to work on one. Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
On the main point, Template:OotMProposed has been updated. It should be fairly clear what's going on - I've upgraded the script to use the #time Parser function which vastly simplifies that template (check the history). All you need to know to read it is that the {{#time:F|now+1 month}} things are just a way to return the name of the month (or year when it's #time:Y) in a certain number of months in the future. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone need any images?

I can't promise anything, obviously, but given I want to do a lot of opera anyway, if there's requests, I can try. More general requests ("Operas by Wagner") are more likely to succeed than specific ("Das Liebesverbot"), though that example may be an exception. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adam Cuerden, I need an (additional or better) image for the operetta Schwarzwaldmädel. I found this lovely painting on German wiki [4], and would love for it to be transfered to Commons so I could replace the current image with it. Could you manage that? Also, are there any other images for this operetta that you could come up with? Thanks, Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I've looked. I've found one image, although it's kind of terrible: There's a high-res PDF of the score here - it's not an amazing image, and I don't think I can do an amazing amount with it, but it's something. I'll also get the image moved over, but a warning: That may just be an image of a girl from the Black Forest, not an illustration of the opera. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Adam. Yeah, that score is pretty dorky; I don't think it would improve the article. Thanks for sleuthing, though! I still would like the Rudolf Epp painting of the lady in Black Forest attire, even though it's not particular to the operetta; I have a similar image in the article now but it's not very good and this would make an excellent replacement. Let me know when you have had time to move it to Commons. Thanks!! Softlavender (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender, in the interim I've uploaded that painting to Commons from another source. It's at File:Schwarzwaelderin by Rudolf Epp.jpg. I don't know what bee the German WP had in its bonnet about not transferring it to Commons. The artist has been dead for well over 100 years, and Commons has loads of paintings by him. It could even go the infobox at the head of the article with an appropriate caption. It's also from a period roughly contemporary with the operetta. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks V. I think the one on German wiki was a bit less blurry so given the fact that you uploaded one copy with correct licensing info I uploaded the German-wiki version on top of it. Thanks for taking the time to find a copy online, upload it, and figure out the copyright release format -- not my favorite thing to do. :-) Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Should have credited the photographer, though. I'll copy over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Input needed re Template:WikiProject Opera

I'd like to request an edit to the edit-protected Template:WikiProject Opera (the one that goes on the talk page of all the articles in our scope), but wanted to run this past members first. I'd like to have Draft class added. Like the List class, it wouldn't require a further quality rating. This would help us to keep track of opera-related drafts and make it easier for the Articles for Creation reviewers to ask for specialist advice on whether the draft should be moved to article space, declined pending improvement, or incinerated. Any objections? Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No objections here. I think that would be very helpful, although I'm not sure how drafters would know that such a banner/template should be applied. Also, drafts are not supposed to be categorised (see WP:DRAFTS); is it OK to have categories on their talk pages? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Michael, the drafters themselves almost certainly wouldn't do it. The banners would be added either by AfC reviewers or by us when we check the new article bot listings. It now lists newly created drafts too, e.g. Draft:The Ring: Solti recording and Draft:Selcuk Cara. It's OK to have project categories on draft talk pages, they're not the same as article categories on the draft itself. Several projects have already added the Draft parameter to their templates. Voceditenore (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Go for it!4meter4 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Save Les Paladins (musical company) from speedy deletion

This article was recently created, probably by someone with a conflict of interest. However, it is a notable baroque ensemble with a discography. It is worth rescuing from speedy deletion if anyone has time.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

With a name like User:Lespaladins, yep. They're blocked now per WP:CORPNAME. Anyhow, the deleting administrator kindly restored it for me (I was working on it when it was deleted). Apart from the promotionalism and lack of referencing, it was simply chunks from the (very garbled) English version of their website. Anyhow, it's OK now as a referenced stub with 5 incoming links. I'm not sure how long the French Wikipedia version is going to last. But that's their problem. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for an excellent rescue. If I weren't swamped with summer graduate classes I would have lended a hand. You are a treasure.4meter4 (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Aida images

I've done some work to fix it, but Aida had major image problems, to whit, images were completely inappropriately positioned: 19th century images in the section on the 20th century and vice-versa; Images placed next to the wrong act, and so on. I've tried to fix it, but there's still issues:

Here's the images I think are most valuable, and should stay:

And the second tier (valuable, but not as:

There's also File:Aida trumpets.jpg which I'm not sure of the value of, but am willing to be convinced.

Should I just reduce to those, and the sound files (useful to give an idea of the music) and cut the rest? The rest are either poorly attributed, or rather poorly shot (e.g. File:Auguste mariette - croquis pour la première d'Aïda.jpg WOULD be valuable, but it's very poorly cropped and reproduced, and I think that too low quality of images can make us look a little too amateur. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have done this. Shows a few things we could illustrate better; I have a plan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added a ninth image to the set, and replaced the Amneris costume image with a full-colour drawing of the La Scala production. Think it has good variety of images now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes - Wagner operas.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over recent weeks infoboxes have been added to nearly all of the Wagner operas. In many cases this was done by User:Gerda Arendt, who in the talk page of the opera wrote 'I suggest an infobox' and four days later simply added it. I have not noted any discussion in the talk pages, nor was the issue raised here or at WP:Wagner. In other cases editors have replaced the standard template with an infobox, without discussion on the talkpage or elsewhere. The consensus was reached, after a painful arbcom discussion, that there should be discussion of infoboxes before they are installed. In the present case it looks as if there has been a deliberate 'stealth' campaign to supply Wagner operas with infoboxes one by one, without raising the generic issue her or at WP:WAGNER. I have therefore reverted all to the Wagner operas template, pending discussion here or other appropriate locations. I am copying this to WP:WAGNER. For the record. I am against such infoboxes, which duplicate the information in the lead paragraphs.--Smerus (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As you (all) may know, my restrictions were changed to being able to add an infobox when I first get consensus on the talk or there is no objection within 72 hours. I added infoboxes only to the last few of Wagner's stage works, while others had done it before me for the others. I like the consistency of all Verdi and all Wagner stage works having an infobox, and found appreciation by Courcelles. (Please don't expect me to reply five places.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do not raise this issue to discuss Gerda's restrictions but to raise the issue of infoboxes being applied in a campaign. Gerda's use of WP:ILIKE is not I think a sufficient argument for this. If editors wish to apply something wholesale in a category, it is only polite to raise the issue at the relevant Project page(s) first. Not all of us keep every Verdi and/or Wagner opera on our watchlists. Incidentally all these edits were carried out , one by one, between May and August.--Smerus (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There was no wholesale. Individual editors tried to improve Wikipedia. AGF. - The arbitrators asked to discuss article by article, - not a great idea but the ruling. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Worm That Turned, is that right? - I argued in 2013 to include an infobox to Siegfried and others, and found no compelling reason not to have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to make it clear, but do so once again, that my raising the issue here has nothing to do with the arbcom - it is about courtesy and proper discussion. Gerda made brief comments on each talkpage and then proceeded without awaiting response. The other editor(s) did not even raise the issue on the talkpage. As Gerda, at least, clearly intended/intends to move through all the remaining Wagner operas (she included the unfinished operas which noone was very likely to have on a watchlist), she might have notified us here. As she didn't, I am taking the opportunity to have a clear discussion. By the way, the other editor involved (Master and Margarite) is known to Gerda - she might at least have advised him/her of the requirement to raise infobox proposals on talk=pages.--Smerus (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a philosophical difference. There are those that believe that "the article" is the focus of WP efforts, in which the infobox is redundant. I think this is probably the only Wikiproject that considers this point of view. From my eyes, it seems as if the rest of the WP community regards the infobox as an essential part of any article, even an article is one sentence long. Magnus Manske's Prep Bio tool (jump start the creation of any biography) includes the infobox as part of starting any biography. The Wikimedia Foundation has stated on more than one occasion that the infobox provides crucial semantic structure to the encyclopedia which will increase in importance. As an example, the infobox is a main starting point for search engines including Google. That we need to discuss this again shows (to me) how out of touch this project is with other aspects of Wikimedia. - kosboot (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Kosboot, it's not the project! It's the personal dislike of this one user and a few others. {{infobox opera}} has 147 transclusions, even after this mass revert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Claryfying: the template was made available to be used in 2013, and an edit which I made in then - a bit prematurely, eaarning me the label "disruptive" (and I confess I was proud), - was restored recently. I would like to know who actually prefers the side navbox on Wagner's works - which duplicates the one at the bottom - to information relevant to the individual work, with an image relevant to that work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Kosboot, your view is clearly mistaken. Infoboxes work for some articles and not others. Plenty of other projects agree with this one. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I really wish some people would get over their enmity to infoboxes. Most Wikipedia readers aren't here to read a 40kb screed on Siegfried's funeral march, or the Liebestod, or how he came to write Parsifal. They'll look at the lede, a cursory swipe through the article, or egads...scan an infobox and then move on. If were not including an infobox, and bitching about it on spurious grounds like aesthetics, we're being exclusionists and elitists ignoring the needs of a wide swath of readers. We're providing content for readers, many who don't have the time to read 10,000 words or care to, and sadly most of them don't care about much more than acquiring a few facts. There are times I look at articles for a fact or two and dont care to read the rest (biographies mostly, but frequently artistic works, too). So get over it, an infobox might not be your thing, but they're here and they serve a big purpose. You have no substantive reason to oppose an infobox beyond a puerile insistence on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

They can read the start of the lead, which will contain the same information, often more accurately put, in a an appropriate form that does not shoehorn it into some general parameters. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the correct answer - the majority of opera articles are well-constructed with key information in the first couple of sentences. Meanwhile can we have a link to the independent survey which shows that "Wikipedia readers aren't here to read a 40kb" article... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The key info is in the lead section. Prose can convey information more flexibly than a box. The idea that there is some sort of massive public demand for infoboxes is nonsense. In the past 18 months the only people on my watchlist calling for them have been from a small group of friends.--Folantin (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

So, just to get the facts straight:

  1. Gerda makes a proposal on several, individual, article talk pages [addendum: as required by this project's guidelines, the MoS, and the past RfC]
  2. Having received zero objections, after a period stipulated by Arbcom, she adds an infobox to each of the articles
  3. Smerus mass-reverts all the additions, without any prior discussion
  4. Smerus accuses Gerda of "stealth"?

Right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On checking, I also note that this project's guidelines (the results of a well-attended RfC) say:

Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

I'll repeat the last part, for clarity:

at each individual article

So, unless my timeline above is in error, I can't quite see what Gerda is supposed to have done wrong, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. While the infobox duplicates information included in the text, the template duplicates information that is in the navbox at the bottom of the article, essentially serving as a condensed navbox. Although having the template at the top of the article makes the navigation more accessible than in the navbox, it seems more useful to use that space to make key summarized information more accessible, as in an infobox. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree that a 72 hour wait is enough to allow notice, and it appears that Gerda gave even a bit more time. I have about 5000 articles on my watchlist, and I am online at least once every 72 hours. If a particular article or category of articles matters that much to me, I would most certainly notice. Indeed, the ILIKEIT/IDONTIKEIT argument on infoboxes has gotten tedious. If the article is "yours" and you want to keep a certain style for that article, (for which I have some sympathy even if ownership is discouraged) that is one thing, but to suddenly object to group of changes weeks later is sort of the LOCALCONSENSUS situation that is being pretty actively being discouraged across many areas of wiki. (I just lost a round on name capitalization, so I know it stings to be on the losing end of a debate over something that may have seemed stable in a local project). So I think it is time to let this go on a project-wide basis and focus on the articles of strongest individual interest to the various users involved. Arbcom was clear: it's a case by case basis. For better or worse, that's the ruling. Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • On the basis of the above comment, I would therefore suggest that, as a start, infoboxes are not appropriate for the articles Die Hochzeit, Die Laune des Verliebten and Männerlist größer als Frauenlist which by their nature (unfinished works) contain very little information. Infoboxes are out of proportion to the articles and all the relevant information is in the first sentences of the article. If you think that this comment should be posted in each of the articles, I am willing to do so. But if you feel these three could be resolved here (one way or the other), then that is also fine by me.--Smerus (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll play the admin here, on a drive-by basis, and treat this as an RfC: I see an overwhelming consensus for Gerda's infoboxing. Smerus, I think it would be a good idea for you to revert your removals of those boxes; if not, no doubt someone else will do it for you. If you want to meet folks here halfway and restore all but the three you mentioned, that would be a good start--and talk page discussion can take care of the rest. For the record, or the CD: I strongly dislike infoboxes, but there's consensus here. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That seems like a good start, undo the mass undo, save for those three articles and then raise the infobox question at the talk page of each. Given the arbcom guidelines that infoboxen are considered on an article-by-article basis, for better or worse, that's the approach to take. I'm all for minimizing the drama, there is probably nothing new to add to the debate, so it's a question of consensus. Montanabw(talk) 01:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, if that's what editors feel. Some of the images in the 'new' infoboxes might not be the most appropriate and could be reviewed - see e.g. my edit at Das Liebsverbot.--Smerus (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @Smerus: Over 24 hours have passed since your last post here; when do you plan to undo your mass reverts? (Red link presumably refers to Das Liebesverbot.)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Terribly sorry, wasn't aware that there was any order, still less a time limit. As it happens I'm very busy over the next week or two. But Andy, if you are so concerned, you could have simply reverted 2 or 3 yourself in the item it took you to send me your charming message. Toddle-pip, --Smerus (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
            • There was no order but sound advice which - if it had been addressed at me - had made me blush and act immediately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
            • ps: if Andy reverted a reverted infobox he would end at arbitration enforcement, and so would I, on top of being determined to revert a thing no more than once, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
            • @Smerus: So what was the meaning of your "fair enough" comment, if not an agreement to follow the advice given by User:Drmies, in his capacity as an admin? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pigsonthewing, Smerus conceded the point, quite graciously. You didn't set a timer, nor did I in my capacity as Overwhelmingly Important Drive-By Administrator. The more courteous you are, the easier all of this is going to be, now and in the future. I am sure that, if I go plowing through the ArbCom archives, I'll find something that talks about courtesy or collegiality or what not, and I am sure that as an admin I am allowed to sanction for breaches of standards of behavior. So, play nice please. Gerda, that hypothetical blush becomes you very well, though it's making me feel like I said something naughty. Alakzi, thank you: I assume this was not sanctionable, haha. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You seem to have mistaken my pointing out Semrus' inappropriate behaviour, and fallacious accusation against Gerda, for discourtesy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I correctly took your discourtesy for discourtesy. Gerda doesn't need you as a shining knight: that's my job. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No one's put me under any sanctions. Yet. Alakzi (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Drmies, don't feel that way: when someone says something naughty I only giggle and try to hide it. I blush when I am given attention I feel I don't deserve (quote from one given to me after the infoboxes case was closed: "And there was peace in them; and I was happy, and forgot to play the lover, and laughed, and did no longer wish to die"), or when I am ashamed. All seems fine now, good teamwork, thanks to all. I don't mind several shining knights and princesses, - which includes Smerus who gave me a GA review in the process. Too bad that readers who looked at Lohengrin yesterday when it was on OTD only saw old Wagner instead of a shining knight and his princess ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I never [5]. --Folantin (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, this whole thing is an all-too-typical QAI flashmob set up - One might have more respect for some of the opinions expressed above if any of the QAI editors concerned had ever been actually involved in WP Opera, or opera article creation or editing, apart from inserting infoboxes. (I except of course Gerda).--Smerus (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who has long been intrigued by this very unusual "project". Almost the first thing you read on the main project page is a large clickable banner proclaiming "Welcome to Quality Article Improvement". Click on the link and it takes you to an obscure subsection of the Infobox ArbCom case talk page [6]. Very odd. I've tried to avoid infobox debates for the past 18 months but I can't help noticing every time one has broken out on a page on my watchlist it's been initiated by a WP:QAIer.--Folantin (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to me to be an element of WP:WIKIHOUNDING involved here. I have certainly noted that my edits, wherever they touch on the issue of infoboxes, provoke responses, often acerbic, from one or more members of QAI. I rather fear also that this dissuades other editors from publicly expressing differing opinions to those propounded by QAI. It's interesting to compare this as a phenomenon with Twitter trolling and suchlike. It seems that WP as a system does not have any method of coping with this.--Smerus (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We respectfully follow good examples such as "Tutto nel mondo è burla", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Gerda, the use of the word 'good' in your apologia is, to put it mildly, not an example of WP:NPV. Viva-Verdi of course, bringing the article to FA status, did not, and did not need to, seek consent on its talk-page. Nor would I, or any responsible editor, in the circumstances, have sought to remove it. VV's 'example' did not extend to seeking to add infoboxes to other editors' articles, as QAI does. His practice cannot therefore be adduced in support of yours. Moreover, as you know, he is no longer able to comment on your example one way or another. I think you may need to find a more robust defence.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Tutto nel mondo è burla. If you check out inclusions of {{infobox opera}}, some of them on FA level, you will find only few initiated by QAI members. This one was, I asked for it. No defense needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Hatting discussion that has dissolved into personal attacks

Methinks Gerda doth protest too much. When we look at the facts, some defence is certainly needed.

Let’s just recall the ArbCom decision of 30th November 2014, which banned Gerda from engaging in Infoboxes for six months – i.e. until end-May 2015. Now let’s look at the addition of infoboxes to Wagner opera articles by editor and date. Remembering also that until I flagged the issue up in WP:OPERA and WP:WAGNER, there had been no attempt by any of the editors involved in creating these boxes to notify other editors that such a campaign was underway. And noting by the way that the relationship between Meister und Margarita, Andy Mabbett and Gerda is evident from the former’s talkpages - in which Gerda - in the 10th May, and thus still under infobox interdict - thanks Meister for 'breaking the curse of the Ring' (what a giveaway! so Gerda was in fact actively encouraging others to add infoboxes whilst prohibited herself).

article edítor date
Die Feen Gerda 07/10
Das Liebesverbot Gerda 07/22
Rienzi Gerda 07/31
Der fliegende Holländer Alakzi 08/29
Tannhäuser Gerda 08/13
Lohengrin Meister und Margarita 04/28
Tristan und Isolde Alakzi 08/29
Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg Gerda 07/11
Der Ring des Nibelungen Gerda 07/16
Das Rheingold Meister und Margarete 05/04
Die Walküre Meister und Margarete 05/09
Siegfried Meister und Margarete 05/02
Götterdämmerung Meister und Margarete 05/02
Parsifal Alakzi 08/29
Die Hochzeit Gerda 07/26
Die Laune des Verliebten Gerda 08/04
Männerlist größer als Frauenlist Gerda 08/09

So the sequence is follows: Meister begins to create infoboxes in April and May whilst Gerda is under interdict. In July, when Gerda is a month free from interdict, Gerda continues to create infoboxes, Whilst Meister creates no more. After the intervention of User:Drmies, the QAI member Alakzi finishes the job, with more enthusiasm than competence (e.g. telling readers that the conductor of Tristan was the cartoonist Vicco von Bülow – so much for quality and accuracy!)

This is scarcely a spontaneous uprising of music-oriented editors determined to have their beloved infoboxes. It is rather a concerted campaign by Gerda and those sympathising with her to encrust Wikipedia with cruft, when they could otherwise have been writing decent articles (as Gerda often does, and as I could be instead of rolling out this sad story). No wonder that editors are being driven from Wikipedia when subjected to the harassment of the QAI warriors. See my talkpage for a recent departure, and for the crocodile tears of Gerda at same. This is not a burla/joke - it is a consistent attempt at cultural enforcement which is irrespective of encyclopaedic value.--Smerus (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your accusation of incompetence is misdirected; it wasn't me who added von Bülow to the infobox. Regardless, one simple mistake one incompetent does not make. Can I suggest that you tone down the rhetoric? Alakzi (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies - I see now that this was in fact an unusual error by Gerda after you created the box - but the aspersion as regards QA therefore remains. I had thought it was an argument for infoboxes that they gave concise correct information; all the greater responsibility for those preparing/editing them not to include nonsense. I have taken your advice, for which thanks, and toned down my rhetoric (slightly).--Smerus (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Smerus, no need to ping me: I am not a party to the infobox wars and am not in the least bit interested in the general aspects. This was a relatively small matter where a consensus agreed. For the bigger questions you need bigger people than me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Drmies but I don't ask big questions :-)--Smerus (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Consensus" = this got swamped by an invasion from the WP:QAI tag team. Heh. Nice team work, guys. --Folantin (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's that kind of asinine comment that makes a lot of Wikipedia editing so irritating. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's clearly "asinine" not to see some kind of overlap between the users in this discussion and the users here [7]. Mention an infobox and before you can say Jack Rabbit they appear. But whatever, Eagle Eyes. Nothing gets past you. --Folantin (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    It must come as a complete surprise that the people interested in infoboxes would be interested to comment here; just as the people who are interested in opera would be interested to comment here. Alakzi (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:QAI is a clique not a project. It does not behave like a normal WP. It has no clearly defined goals, as demonstrated the vagueness of the name. It operates almost completely under the radar and hardly anyone is aware of its existence, except the chosen few. One of the reasons it exists is to provide mutual assistance to a small group of members, including bypassing sanctions - a remarkably high number of its core original membership have been sanctioned or outright banned (e.g. User:Br'er Rabbit).
But, no, from past experience I'm not surprised to see members of WP:QAI appear out of the blue on pages they've never edited before when one of them is in distress.--Folantin (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The QAI people haven't commented here simply because they're part of QAI; they're part of QAI because they share some of the same ideas and values - one of them being that infoboxes are integral to the encyclopaedia. Why shouldn't they be allowed to voice their opinion "on pages they've never edited before"? Alakzi (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Alakazi, try understanding the difference between a member of a flashmob and a writer of encyclopedia articles. Also read WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. As QAI operates explicitly as a WP:CANVASSer it surprises me that it can consider this to be consistent with its avowed respect for WP principles. --Smerus (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, because Andy, Gerda and Jack have never written anything. WP:MEAT does not apply and I have not seen evidence of canvassing. Alakzi (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Smerus: Seeing as you're not too busy after all, do please expand on the "evident" relationship between User:Meister und Margarita and me. Preferably with, y'knnw, some evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've hatted part of the above discussion as it has devolved into personal attacks and that gets us nowhere. The bottom line is that consensus can change. I have respect for the approach that was taken earlier, to allow a case-by-case discussion per the arbcom mandate. Further complaints and attacks here are serving no purpose at all. Some people like infoboxes, some people don't like infoboxes, and in this project, reasonable people may differ, and the solution may well be to split the baby and let each faction focus on the articles they care about the most, with rational and respectfulhey get together and put everything to rightsdiscussion on the few where a clear lead editor is difficult to determine. Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Are we advocating ownership now? Alakzi (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, whatever your rationale for hatting the above, I agree with your conclusions. The ownership issue highlighted by Alakzi transcends however the petty issue of infoboxes. The true issue is whether a vigilante group knows better than all other editors and owns the soul of WP as a consequence of its unique enlightenment. The fact that they have a leader in partial exile adds to the romance and excitement of their mission. They are the gumbie cats of Wikipedia: they may be (for the most part) charming and lovable, but when (they hope) the rest of the world is asleep, they gather together to put everything to rights (as they see it). And then some of them are not slow to extend claws to to those who beg to differ.--Smerus (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're quite right in thinking that you can belittle other editors with impunity, provided that you do it with a flourish - or several. You've not quite topped your earlier Palmyra analogy, but I can only hope. Alakzi (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I aim to please.--Smerus (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Smerus: I'm still waiting for you to expand on the "evident" relationship between User:Meister und Margarita and me. With some evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Er - wasn't all this hatted so as to consign our mutual irritabilty to the bin?--Smerus (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You have no such evidence? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to close this discussion

Never have I been so glad to be away for a month with limited internet access. What an unedifying spectacle, I find on my return SMirC-sad.svg. Virtually a re-run of 2013 when editors on both sides of this issue nearly brought a highly productive and previously enjoyable project to its knees. When infobox opera was developed the consensus was that it is available as an option and that whether or not to include it and how much of it to include should be discussed on individual article talk pages if anyone objects. This project talk page is for planning collaborations, seeking help with sourcing and fact-checking, improving and finding good images, celebrating Rossini's birthday etc. It is not the place to

  • Relitigate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes
  • Criticize other editors either as individuals or as a group,
  • Revisit old grudges, or create new ones by continually bickering and sniping at each other.
  • Fight pointless duels over who will have the last word in the snipe-fest.

I'm going to close this discussion. Can I ask you all to please not re-open it. It's quite clear that at the moment a few editors have fairly entrenched positions on this issue. This is unfortunate, but that's the way it is. You may find it inconvenient to slug it out article-by-article but that's the way it is too. Relentless and personalised attempts to continue rehashing this general issue here are utterly sterile and destructive. I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes. But that is neither here nor there. The world is not going to come to an end if some articles do not have them and vice versa. So...

  • If you have a problem with other editors' behaviour, take it to their talk page, ANI, or Arbcom. This is not the place.
  • If you have a problem with an infobox on a particular article take it to the article's talk page, and at most leave a brief, neutral note here notifying the discussion(s) for editors who may wish to participate—minus personalised comments about who added it or who removed it.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


A useful consequence of the above farrago has been that inspection reveals many of the Wagner opera articles to be of mediocre or even poor quality. I am currently looking at Siegfried and anyone else who wishes to improve there is welcome. User: Adam Cuerden is kindly assisting on the images.--Smerus (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Featured operatic pictures

Un ballo in maschera, I Lombardi, Giovanna d'Arco, Les Troyens, La Prise de Troie, Les Troyens à Carthage is are now a featured pictures. The images for Rigoletto, I Lombardi alla prima crociata, Giovanna d'Arco, and Les Troyens [all passed], are up at featured picture candidates, but - probably owing to it being the time university students have their final exams, at a guess - participation at featured pictures is in the middle of a lull, and, with the exception of the three Les Troyens images and I Lombardi, they may not reach quorum and thus have to be renominated later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Update: Problem seems to have passed; only Rigoletto failed to reach quorum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. The 3 new FAs have been added to the Portal:Opera rotation as Selected pictures 53, 54, and 55. Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Few more! Adam Cuerden (talk)
Ditto for the Les Troyens score set. See the Portal's Selected pictures 56, 57, and 58. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Beat me to it! Thanks, Voceditenore! Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also featured: File:Carl Nielsen c. 1908 - Restoration.jpg and File:Giuseppe Verdi, La traviata title page - Restoration.jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Jacques Offenbach - A. Jannin - Robinson Crusoé.jpg was featured today. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Giuseppe_Verdi,_Rigoletto,_Vocal_score_illustration_by_Roberto_Focosi_-_Restoration.jpg as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC) File:Strauss, Richard - Ariadne auf Naxos - Restoration.jpg which I think is the first modernist opera with a featured picture (or, at least, one specific to it). Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to stop listing. They're coming in rather fast, and I'm marking them up above with stars. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 BBC Cardiff Singer of the World competition

Someone has created Nadine Koutcher (the winner) today. It's a two-sentence stub that could use... er... considerable expansion. I swapped out the ever-ghastly {{infobox Musical artist}} for the more tasteful {{Infobox person}}. I've created a stub which also needs expansion for Jongmin Park, who won the Song Prize.

Meanwhile, it appears that an article has existed since 2012 for the chap who won the Dame Joan Sutherland Audience Prize, but it's currently got a Mongolian-style title, Enkhbatyn Amartüvshin (patronymic first). Not sure how appropriate that is. Anyhow, I've created a redirect for the name he's known by in European opera houses, Amartuvshin Enkhbat. Maybe should be the other way 'round?

I had rather fancied Oleksiy Palchykov, a Ukranian tenor who already has a significant career and won the first heat, but I gather he wasn't loud enough. Voceditenore (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The Mongolian guy was by far the best in the competition. We will hear a lot more of him; definitely keep the article under one title or other. Koutcher a knock-out in terms of technique but void of personality. Palchykov will do well on some kind of '3 Tenors' circuit, I'm sure. Park gave the best individual performance last night with the slander song.--Smerus (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh it's definitely appropriate to have an article on the Mongolian. I was just questioning the appropriateness of its current title. Having said that, the article could use clean up and better referencing. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
PS Rupert Christiansen said "I was much more taken by the sweet-toned tousle-haired Ukrainian tenor Oleksiy Palchykov, whose 'Una furtiva lagrima' showed bags of the charm in short supply elsewhere." At least someone agrees with me, Smerus SMirC-smile.svg. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • More info (if needed and if folks don't already have these): Since BBC TV iPlayer is only viewable from the UK, but BBC Radio iPlayer is listenable worldwide, here are the radio programmes listenable from anywhere, online:
  1. Highlights of the early stages, 16–19 June (four parts; they expire approximately 16 July)
  2. Finals, aired 19–21 June (two parts; expires approximately 18 July)
Can post these on article talk page(s) as well, if desired. They can also provide citations for missing information.
-- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


With a view to getting Giuseppe Verdi up to GA (eventually), I've now weeded out and reorganized many of the images in the article, and begun copyediting. But in the process it looks to me like the article needs very substantial rewriting. It is full of a lot of clutter detail about individual operas that really belong in the opera articles rather than the biography article. And there is very little about influence, etc. (or indeed provenance - what V took over from Grand Opera, Rossini, etc. etc.). In the process V's actual life seems to me difficult to extrapolate for the general reader. But before I go much further I would appreciate some other opinions. Best, --Smerus (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

One thought: Check the opera pages. Some of the material to be cut might be useable there; the opera pages are hardly perfect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've flushed out a number of pix, and relocated details on the operas to a separate section. This has revealed that the biography section was extremely uneven, containing a lot of inconsequential detail and unenlightening quotes from various writers; many passages were (and are) based on one particular biographer, with much space given to rumour and suppositions. I've begun to copyedit the existing text, inadequate though it is. For example, there is almost nothing on the final 20 years of Verdi's life. I would hope eventually to achieve a complete rewrite, based on four areas - biography, music, reception and legacy - which I have found to be appropriate and acceptable in other GAs on which I have worked. But this is going to take quite a while.--Smerus (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do? I don't have a lot of sources to hand, but I could hit the library if given a task. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Adam, I suggest that I plough on till I get the thing down to basics and then I will start re-building and give you a call. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Voice classification for contemporary roles

On articles that list roles by voice type, the only source cited is Guide to Operatic Roles and Arias, and there are very few roles from contemporary opera listed. Is there a good source for classifying roles from more contemporary opera composers like Philip Glass, Harrison Birtwistle or Kaija Saariaho?SpiritedMichelle (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi SpiritedMichelle. For contemporary works, the music publisher usually has authoritative information. See for example, Boosey & Hawkes's description of Birtwistle's The Minotaur here and Chester Music here for Philip Glass's Appomattox. You can also take as authoritative any voice type descriptions which appear on a composer's official website, liner notes if the opera has been recorded, or opera house programs, particularly if it was for the world premiere production. Voceditenore (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Getting Giuseppe Verdi to GA

OK I've now created a full(ish) version of the article but am feeling brain-dead. Please look and comment - is it now appropriate to go for peer review - or even for GA review?--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks pretty solid. I haven't checked everything though. I'll probably go in and tweak the images - I think they look better with a bit more consistent sizing. On the whole, though, it's very solid looking, and I can't imagine that GA review would hurt it at all: Either it will pass, or some minor issues will be raised (and fixed). I'd rather peer review after GA: This is getting near FA-quality; I think we can push it through fairly easy.
One thing I notice: There's a lot of Harvard reference errors in the references; This appears to be of the not-very-serious variant where there's a minor setup issue. E.g. "Budden 1993" (ref. 109) says it has no reference to link to, but there's clearly a Budden 1993 in the list, as anyone looking themselves will see - it'll be something minor. I'll work to fix that later on. There may be one or two typos/missing references - I note a Budden 1996 (reference 108, et al) which has nothing to link to (is it meant to be Brook 1996?), hence why checking for Harv cite errors is useful - but I'll have a full list once I'm done tweaking. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Smerus: Okay, here's the referencing errors:

Rosselli 2000 does not exist. No obvious correction. (used a lot)
Rosselli 2004 does not exist. No obvious correction. (used a lot)
From the list, Rosselli, John (1997). The life of Verdi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press... does exist, but is not used.
Parker 1988a does not exist; probably Parker 1998a?
Possibly related - or possibly not - from the list, Parker, Roger (2007a). The New Grove Guide to Verdi and His Operas. is not used.
Budden 1994a does not exist, may be 1984a.
Chusid 1991 does not exist. (uncertain correction)
Chusid 1983 does not exist. (uncertain correction)
Reference 74 lacks a year.
Osborne 1992 does not exist.
Budden 1996 does not exist (used several times) - May be meant to be Brook 1996 or one of the other Buddens?
From the list, Brook (ed.), Stephen (1996). Opera: A Penguin Anthology. not used
Berlin 1969 does not exist. May be 1979?
From the list, Gossett, Philip (2008). Divas and Scholars: Performing Italian Opera. is not used
From the list, Kelly, Thomas Forrest (2004). First Nights at the Opera. is not used.
From the list, Petrobelli, Pierluigi (2001). "Giuseppe Verdi (1813 - 1901)". Istituto di studi verdiani. is not used.

I can't fix any of these without access to the sources to check the references - it's not clear, and we don't want to get this fixed wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No problems, now you have pointed out I will fix. Very many thanks for this spotting.--Smerus (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Done now I think. Just my sloppy typing. But I have checked all with the references I have by me. Do please deal with the images as you feel appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Verdi now up for GA

For those who are interested, Giuseppe Verdi is now up for GA - anyone is welcome to start the review. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Smerus. We humans tend to be responsive animals, reacting to what we see/ hear/ read – I've quickly eyeballed your major rewrite of the Verdi article, but find myself merely reacting to what you have written, and I need some time to step back and consider the structure/ balance of the article, and to note on a shirt cuff what I might expect to see in an article on Verdi. I've thrown in a half-dozen minor copy-edits, but will take time to come back with something fuller anon. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
One thing that will be be in my comments is the lede -- the introduction of Wagner into the lede has always rankled. If it is worth mentioning that "Wagner and Verdi are the two pre-eminent composers of the 19th century" inside the Verdi lede, surely it should be added to the Wager lede too? It should be in both, or neither. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. There is a lot of thrashing about of the images at the moment which is waiting to settle down - I'd be interested if people are willing for some comments on the visual inpact as well, although of course the information content is key. I agree re Wagner and will reconsider this.--Smerus (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On the visual side, I have to admit to a sneaking liking for some of the Viva-Verdi pictures that were new to me ... images that you would not see if you were restricted to one or two pictures per section because they are always the third or fourth choice. Perhaps we could follow the example of the Encyclopédie and have a separate volume (article) of illustrations, perhaps a timeline for Verdi's life, with maps of the political state of Italy through his life, a few words on the key events shaping the political and cultural landscapes in the countries in which he was active, and the images left over from the Verdi article... One of the WPs does this sort of contextual article, perhaps the Italian? Scarabocchio (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look at this. I reworded the lead slightly about Wagner. But on consideration, the thing is this (it appears to me): whilst Wagner was virtually never in his time compared with Verdi, Verdi was frequently compared with Wagner and his use (or absence of use) of Wagnerian techniques was frequently commented on. This is mentioned in the article; and I think therefore that Wagner does merit a passing reference in the Verdi lead, but not vice-versa.--Smerus (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Btw I will just remind all concerned about the criteria for GA - they are not too forensic!--Smerus (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Now GA.--Smerus (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Bravo to all involved, including Viva-Verdi! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Arundel Festival

Hi all. Just noticed we don't have an article on the Arundel Festival which does produce opera among other arts. I'm not from the UK and know nothing about it. Anyone care to take a crack at creating an article?4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

From an opera point of view, it's not really important. Here's the blurb for this year's festival. What they have opera-wise is this outfit performing stuff like Così fan tutte with a small orchestra in one of the rooms of Arundel Castle, although not every year. Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I had thought maybe there was more happening there in the past as Iain Hamilton's Lancelot had its world premiere there in 1985.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Judit Kutasi

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judit Kutasi. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing Attila B. Kiss

Hi all. I just came across a new poorly conceived article which I have been cleaning up. I am having a bit of trouble finding references for tenor Attila B. Kiss (often given as Atilla Kiss B.; Opera magazine specifically says it should be Atilla B. Kiss) which was recently created by another editor with no references. He has won two notable prizes (although there are no sources for this), so notability is probably not an issue. That said, everything I've come across so far other than one mention in a review in Opera seems to be press releases from the opera houses which include his bio most likely written by his agent. Another issue I've come across is when the article was created the author describes him as Hungarian even though he was born in Romania, trained in Romania, and made his professional debut in Romania (according to the Hungarian wikipedia which entirely unreferenced). He has been working primarily at the Hungarian State Opera House in recent years and he is from a part of Romania that used to be part of Hungary, so I suppose its possible that he became a Hungarian citizen and that he may be of Hungarian ethnic descent. For the time being I changed the article to Romanian until a source can prove otherwise. Any help sourcing or expanding this stub would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a ref for the prizes. He was also awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary. And, he appeared in a fairly major film of Erkel's opera Bánk bán, singing the title role (ref added). If he was awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, he is probably of Hungarian nationality now, but I'm removing the Nationality parameter from the infobox. Without a reliable source, nothing should be listed. It's not a place for guesswork. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds good.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean up of a likely COI created article

Although VOICExperience Foundation is not the worst COI creation I've ever seen, it does need some help. At least the author took the time to add some good references to the article, even if the tone is somewhat unencyclopedic. It needs categories and cleanup. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any independent notice having been taken of this organization in the press. There are zillions of these young singer workshops. The "best" reference is a puff-piece in Classical Singer. As a stand-alone article it would never survive an AfD. Particularly inappropriate was the list of their former students and their subsequent employment, not one of whom has an article or appears to be notable, despite this program being 15 years old. The references for the singers merely verify their performances elsewhere, not that they studied with the program. I have created a brief, factual section (minus the puffery) in the article about Milnes and have redirected the page to Sherrill Milnes#VOICExperience Foundation. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Good plan. I agree that a redirect is the best decision. Perhaps we should place a COI note on the talk page of the user who created the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Frequently performed (female) opera composers

I have added a column for composer gender to the new table of Frequently performed opera composers despite my incurable gender-blindness, and feeling that gender is given too much weight in general. I'm with Thea Musgrave on this one ("Thea Musgrave is frequently interviewed and questioned about being a "woman" composer, to which she has replied; "Yes, I am a woman; and I am a composer. But rarely at the same time." (her website, at some time in the past)). That said, composers of the female gender are a very high-profile topic at the moment, and some readers may wish to know how they fare in numbers and rankings compared with the composers of the male gender. Scarabocchio (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the biggest obstacle to female opera composers in the past was that it was the most expensive type of musical composition to put on, and thus had the biggest obstacles from prejudices. I'd like to think those barriers have, at least, somewhat been pulled down now. I think this is why specific efforts to rescue from obscurity works by female composers of the past is valuable. Otherwise... think it's very easy to fetishize it, and that's patronizing itself. For example I think that Ethel Smyth should be performed more often. This is because I've heard her music, and it's quite good, and has a distinct voice. It's hard to judge Smyth perfectly, though - she has a lot of works not even recorded. I'm pretty sure there are masses of worse works than Smyth with far more prominence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Scarabocchio! That's really useful and will come in handy in March (Women's History Month), when the CoM has been a woman composer for the last few years. March 2014 and 2015 was Musgrave and March 2013 was Ethel Smyth. That one was particularly successful, resulting in the creation of articles for her Fantasio, Der Wald, Fête Galante, and Entente Cordiale. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like there are two women composers on the list that wikipedia doesn't have articles on: Elisabeth Naske (along with the operas Die feuerrote Friederike and Die Omama im Apfelbaum) and Lynne Plowman (along with the operas Gwyneth and the Green Knight, House of the Gods, The Face in the Mirror, and Captain Blood’s Revenge). One of them would make a great composer of the month for March 2016.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: Smyth. It looks from this page, that the Boatswain's Mate is to be recorded this autumn. They'll be using the chamber orchestration used in last year's performances (in German, alas) in Lucerne. I remember the libretto (by Smyth herself) as comparable to Gilbert on a good day, so this will be one to look out for. An interesting sentence on that page: "There is no doubt that, with the general boom in women’s music, and the fact that her music goes out of copyright next year (2015), we will be hearing a lot more of Smyth in the future." It also just happens(?) that it is the work's centenary next January. Scarabocchio (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
That would be a nice project for an FA, though it does face issues of more material coming out as it gets nearer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Adam, if you are serious, have a look at these pages for the Ethel Smyth Research Centre, created in Detmold after the 2008 festival to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth. In addition, the people behind Retrospect Opera, those making the recording, sound as if they would be amenable to sharing what they have. En passant, the toothbrush used to conduct her March of the Women, quoted in the overture and relevant to the plot, is in a display case of Suffragette items in the Museum of London. Scarabocchio (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: Naske. Not forgetting her 2014 Der satanarchäolügenialkohöllische Wunschpunsch ... Scarabocchio (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Opera of the Month proposal

Hi all. I just noticed that The Taming of the Shrew (opera) actually links to a section on opera adaptations in the wikipedia article about the play. There are many operas that have been based on Shakespear's The Taming of the Shrew, most of which have no articles on wikipedia. I would suggest that we create articles on the operas mentioned in the article on the play. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"John Kendrick Bangs' Katherine: A Travesty (1888) is a Gilbert and Sullivan-style parody operetta which premiered in the Metropolitan Opera" - why am I suspicious of that "Gilbert and Sullivan-style" description? Burlesques and travesties long predate Gilbert, indeed, he got his start doing them. On the other hand, H.M.S. Pinafore madness is documented in America at around that time, so it's not an impossible influence... Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

    • Ah, this makes more sense: It was a burlesque with some songs based off of pre-extant Gilbert and Sullivan numbers.[8] Not quite the same thing, but at least in the ballpark. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, back to the original. I think step one is figuring out which ones were more than flashes in the pan - or, at least, big enough flashes in the pan to be worth an article. There's a few possibilities we could pull out of there, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I personally have an interest in writing on Vittorio Giannini's The Taming of the Shrew (1953), and Dominick Argento's Christopher Sly (1963); both of which have had more than one staging. I know nothing about the others, but the article indicates that Ruperto Chapí's Las bravías was incredibly popular so there must be quite a lot of material for that opera as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)