Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 21

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

Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22

Archives Table of Contents

Category:Operas and the 'Secondary categorization rule' of WP:SUBCAT

As noted by Fireplace the 'Secondary categorization rule' of WP:SUBCAT does apply perfectly here: When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. (My attempts to explain this early were clumsy, sorry about that, but this is spot on.) -- Kleinzach 10:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I don't agree. The examples cited concern such issues as categories where some articles are subcategorised by a rare attribute, and where there is no appropriate subcat for most articles. (in the case of American actors, the issue is winning an award, a category which can only include a very small minority of the parent category).
    Categorising operas is very different, because all operas have many other attributes by which they are (or should be) categorised - e.g. by language (looking for Tosca in Category:Italian language opera) is so very obvious that it is a whole different kettle of fish to guessing whether an actor won an award). Placing all the articles in the parent category hinders the reader, because apart grom the constant risk of subcategories getting lost on second or subsequent pages there are several article about operas (plural) which are buried in the long list of articles on individual operas.
    please take another look at Category:Novels; I don't see any issues which apply there but don't apply here. We have Category:Novels by author, Category:Novels by genre, Category:Novels by country, Category:Novels by year etc, giving the reader several different ways to find what they are looking for. In the case of an opera, we have a similar range of options: the reader can find an an opera by year, by by genre, by by language or by by composer.
    I would suppprt keeping articles in Category:Operas if they have not been properly subcategorised (by language, year, genre etc), but not once they have been subcategorised.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • PS, this section is now discussing two issues which don't need to be conflated: as well the operas-by-year, we are discussing duplicate categorisation between Category:Operas and its subcats. To make things easier to follow, may I suggest that further discussion of the subcats/duplicate issue be hived off to a a separate section?
I'd prefer to keep the issue of the removal of operas from Category:Operas here and not split it off. I've been away from my desk all day but it seems the categories have not been replaced. Am I wrong? -- Kleinzach 10:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC) I see this conversation has already bifurcated (right word?) so I am going to put in a section on two to clarify where we are. I trust this will make things clearer for anybody trying to follow the thread of BrownHairedGirl's various ideas and arguments? -- Kleinzach 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of years in opera

Along the lines of these and in light of the comments here (A Musing) and here (Mak), I think a substantial List of years in opera article, with 401 associated articles (being now in the 400th anniversary of L'Orfeo), would be a valuable educational and navigation tool. Unless there are objections, I'll get started. Obviously such a project will never be complete, but given the excellent list articles we already have, it shouldn't be too hard to populate the pages. Fireplace 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I see that List of years in music includes some opera information. My sense is that, just as there is enough content to merit List of years in poetry separate from List of years in literature, there's enough material out there for an opera chronology. Fireplace 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we already have the List of important operas which is a list of years in opera and a very good one (featured article). -- Kleinzach 03:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Multiple-language operas

Is Category:Multiple-language operas for operas where the libretto uses more than one language, or for operas where the libretto is monolingual but has been translated into one or more other languages?

Either way, could somebody clarify the situation in the category text? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This was created in 2005. I think it must be for operas where the libretto uses more than one language, but I suggest you check the individual operas. -- Kleinzach 14:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Done, and it contains both. Is that satisfactory? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A very large number of opera librettos have been translated into other languages, and it would be pointless to include them in this category. I've looked through the individual operas in the category, and all of them except two have librettos that use more than one language. The exceptions are Satyagraha, which is entirely in Sanskrit, and Obsitos, where, apparently, revised versions were in German rather than Hungarian. So the former is monolingual and the latter can be categorised as both Hungarian-language and German-language (see Don Carlos for a precedent).--GuillaumeTell 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the text vaguely clear now? Mak (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Clear enough, and I've re-catted the above two operas (and added Oedipus Rex to the multi-lang cat - the libretto is in Latin and the vernacular of the audience). --GuillaumeTell 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Frame box for roles in Verdi’s articles

I am currently changing the format for roles to frame format – hopefully all our future articles will be using frames for roles (refer Puccini’s articles). It is best if we could standardize the format. But there are many “empty” info like the singers name, voice range and also the conductor. Hopefully somebody could fill them up - Jay 13:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The basic box should be the same, as for example Les contes d'Hoffmann. If anything is unclear please ask. The boxes are close in style though there are minor variations. No great problems I think. Perhaps it's better to concentrate on operas where we have some of the names of role creators? Otherwise the boxes will look rather empty. Thanks for your work. -- Kleinzach 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding the creators of Verdi roles (as listed in Budden) to Jay's boxes as time permits. I think we need a few more articles on C19 Italian opera singers and am redlinking those that have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera. --GuillaumeTell 14:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be useful. I started working on a list of pre-recording era singers before and would be happy to share the information. We have no lists or relevant categories so it is difficult to know what is in the wild. (We also lack articles on a lot of 19th century French singers). -- Kleinzach 06:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish Opera houses

Please could someone translate the pages in this list and then place them in Category:Opera houses in Poland and put them at List_of_opera_houses#Poland which only has one opera house! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I could probably do this at some point. I don't plan to translate them all at once, mind! Any particular order of priority for those Polish opera house articles ? Cheers. --Folantin 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am not an expert on Polish opera or Poland! I will ask on the Poland page which should hopefully get more volunteers. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please post here BEFORE you start translating otherwise we will get people duplicating each other and getting mad. Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suspect there won't be a mad rush here to translate these articles from Polish! ;) I'll probably do the translation in my sandbox first (accessible from my user page - it will be the second one). I've had a brief look at some of those Polish pages and they seem sourced, which is a major consideration for me. Maybe I'll take on Opera Krakowska first as an experiment since it's in Poland's second city. --Folantin 19:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It will be easier if you one person commits to one article so can we say you will do Opera Krakowska OK? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. --Folantin 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We would need to decide on names/placenames - English or not - before creating articles. I don't have strong feelings either way but it needs to be consistent. (This is the existing Opera Project rule for opera titles (NB not organizations as such): English names are normally preferred for eastern European, Russian and Scandinavian operas unless the title is a simple proper name. This is for practical reasons.) -- Kleinzach 02:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: some of the below are opera companies rather than opera houses. --Folantin 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I rarely deal with opera houses or opera companies so I know little about how to deal with these articles correctly, but here's a quick translation of one of the stubs below so those with more knowledge can fix it to their taste (NB I've left off the source and the cats for the time being):
Opera Śląska, Bytom
Opera Śląska (Silesian Opera) in Bytom has existed since 1945. It has its home at the former City Theatre, which was built between 1898-1901.

--Folantin 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"the existing Opera Project rule" - there are no such "rules". Andy Mabbett 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. There may be a convention, and it may well be a good one which has been widely discussed, but projects don't make rules. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've created the stub for Opera Śląska, Bytom. I haven't created any redirects so it should be easy to move it to "Silesian Opera, Bytom" if that's a better location. I haven't added any categories either. It's still a stub but there is more information if you follow the link on the page we can make use of. Cheers. --Folantin 12:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've created a page for Teatr Wielki, Łódź. Again, feel free to play around with what to call it and what category to put it in (this definitely is an opera house). I'm afraid I've used up all my available translating time today. --Folantin 13:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks- don't forget to add Category:Opera houses in Poland when you create the articles. Should we index the category by establishment name, then place, or place first then establishment? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know. First let's see whether people want the pages under the English or Polish name. Just to add, if you choose Polish then the city names first might be a good idea, or else you'll end up with a load of venues under "T" (as in English, adjectives usually go before the noun in Polish, but not with theatres; cf. Theatre Royal, Drury Lane in English). --Folantin 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List to do

Please place your name next to each article you intend to translate

  • Teatr Wielki w Warszawie - Opera Narodowa (Grand Theatre, Warsaw - National Opera)

  • Warszawska Opera Kameralna (Warsaw Chamber Opera - opera company/house)

  • Teatr Wielki w Łodzi (Grand Theatre,Łódź - opera house) (User:Folantin)

  • Teatr Wielki im. Stanisława Moniuszki w Poznaniu (Grand Theatre/Stanisław Moniuszko Theatre, Poznań - opera house)

  • Opera Krakowska (User:Folantin) (Kraków Opera - opera company, house still under construction)

  • Opera Wrocławska (d. Opera Dolnośląska) (Wrocław Opera, formerly Lower Silesian Opera - opera house)

  • Teatr Muzyczny w Lublinie (Music Theatre, Lublin - opera house)

It may be a good idea to crosspost this to WP:PWNB and suggest collaboration.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice article proliferation

There is an article on Vocal range explaining the (basically Anglo-American) classification of voices in contrast to Fach explaining the German system, which originates from the German Wikipedia. (I have had Fach on my watchlist because every month or two sometimes tries to translate all the terms into English and then transform it into a second Vocal range.) A new editor User:Operalala has now developed a third article called Voice type (formerly Vocal weight), pretty much covering the same area as Vocal range (but referring to Fach rather than Italian voice types).

There is even more proliferation on individual voice types. For example we have Soprano, and also Soubrette, Lyric soprano, Lyric coloratura soprano, Dramatic coloratura soprano, Spinto soprano, Dramatic soprano, and Wagnerian soprano, largely using material from the main soprano article, also a List of famous sopranos and a List of notable sopranos (another User:Operalala creation). (I haven't even dared look at the tenor articles . . .)

It all needs merging and cleaning up. Does this subject interest anyone? We probably need two or three interested editors to sort it all out. -- Kleinzach 04:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Navigating sub-categories

Comments above by Mak (about difficulties in navigating categories) prompted me to look at whether category navigation could be improved.

Two points occurred to me: the first was that when looking at a category, it's easy to find its sub-categories to several levels by clicking on the [+] button beside each category to expand it ... but that doesn't work when you want to look back up to parent categories.

On the categories by year, I have rolled them out with navigation links to other years (see e.g. Category:1906 operas), and the decade categories include a template which produces links to each of the by-year-categories (see e.g. Category:1890s operas). This makes it quite easy to jump between years categories.

However, it isn't easy to get from there to the other opera sub-categories, so I thought that a small navigation box might help. Here's what I came up with:

For demonstration purposes, I have added it to Category:1837 operas, Category:French-language operas and Category:Opera buffa.

Do people like the idea? It's implemented via a template, so once it's rolled out across the categories, it can easily be changed to reflect any reorganisation of the category structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. Using this template would certainly be more convenient than clicking through several links to find what you want. --Kyoko 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
We already have a category navigation box - displayed prominently on the Project page!:
I suggest we use what we have got already (modified as necessary) rather than creating new boxes unnecessarily. --Kleinzach 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd prefer to stick with what we've got. --Folantin 14:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That box is good for use on the project page and on the limited set of articles where it is already deployed. But it's too big to be placed on on every individual category, because it would push the actual list of articles below the first screenful for anyone using a standard 1024*768 monitor. On articles, the box goes at the bottom of the page, where that box works very nicely ... but on categories, the box ends up above the listing. Having that big a box up top would hinder navigation rather than helping it, which I presume is one of the reasons why it has not so far been applied to any categories. If you look at other category navigation boxes, they are much smaller, for and that's why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point about the first screen, and I like your proposed template, BHG (may I call you BHG?) I wonder also whether for the larger categories {{CategoryTOC}} might not be helpful. I think it might make more sense though to not have the subcats of "Operas by year" in the template, and in the main page of Category:Operas by year to have a template similar to {{Category2000sheader}}. Perhaps in place of the subcats of Operas by year we could have composers and librettists? Too much? Mak (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
hi Mak (yes, pls call me BHG; I would have chosen a shorter and less fluffy username). Yes, {{CategoryTOC}} is good, though since there are unlikely to be many numerically-named here, {{CatAZ}} might be better (I had already added it to Category:Italian-language operas). The reason I put the centuries in there was that they include a box of direct links to each year category, and it wouldn't be feasible to put those in the main page of Category:Operas by year. Also, there are no other opera categories where the subcats can be listed succinctly. Anyway, here's what it looks like with composers and librettists added. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to explain - in as much dispassionate detail as possible - why this box (immediately above) doesn't fly.

1. The Opera categories link doesn't go to the opera categories in general, but to the Opera category which is top-level. It doesn't show opera categories as such.
2. Both the By genre link and Opera genres point to the same page.
3. Operettas appears in bold in the middle of the table despite being a low-level genre subcategry (which should be with the other genres.
4. Musicals are outside the scope of this project. They are covered by the Musical Theatre Project.
5. Likewise Oratorios in general are outside the scope of this project. They belong to th Classical Music Project.

I propose we use the existing Opera categories box (with the salmon-coloured bar above) as the basis for any futures boxes. It is clear and accurate, already approved, and can be adapted and reduced in size as necessary.

The structure/categories of the Opera Project are complicated - a bit like a science project. There are a lot of technicalities that have to taken into account - and checked with reference books. In order to understand the structure we need to be both familiar with the subject of opera, and with the actual state of the articles on WP. I've been working on this for the past two and a half years and I've been grateful for the advice of a group of scholarly editors while I've been doing it. -- Kleinzach 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the category structure here is a lot simpler than in most other category trees I have worked on. But your reply misunderstands what we are discussing here: we are not considering "the structure/categories of the Opera Project", we are discussing wikipedia categories, which fall into the area which this project covers; the project does not WP:OWN the article or the categories. For those reasons, there is no need for a category navigation box to try to include all the elements of the opera project, or to restrict itself to the boundaries of the project.
The question here is simply whether some cat nav boxes might help readers navigate the category tree, so I think that to remove the confusion between categorisation and this project, it is best not to try discussing this issue within the problematic confines of this project's talk page.
Some of you specific points above are simply wrong (such as point 2), others are accurate and have been useful, and some miss the point. But the crucial problem is your assumption that the existing box (designed for a different purpose) is an appropriate starting point for use on all category pages: different tasks need different solutions. I'll implement something based on the feedback so far, and am happy to continue the discussion at Category talk:Operas, which may provide a less hostile and exclusive space than this page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again WP:OWN is turned on its head to justify editing without reading, listening, checking and using reference books - a licence for making mistakes, mistakes that will either remain to detract from the articles or mistakes that someone will have to use their time to clean up!
Categorization should be done by those who understand the subject - not by non-contributors. Let's take Gastropods (there is a project for Gastropods). I know nothing about Gastropods. I recognize that I'm not qualified to write about them, edit, or categorize them. Members of the Gastropod project will be unhappy if I re-arrange their taxonomy, tell them their editing style is wrong, change their colour-coding or whatever. So I leave them alone to get on with building their corner of the encyclopedia.
There is no shame involved in not knowing about Gastropods or opera. The shame is in interfering with other people trying to make their unique contributions. -- Kleinzach 08:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)