Talk:Toronto Light Opera Association

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Toronto Light Opera Association article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Toronto Light Opera Association received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Canada: Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Opera

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 1 January 2013 by reviewer Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs).

Reorganization of this article[edit]

User:Ahnoneemoos had asked for help on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera talk page, and so I spent some time last night doing just that to give the article a similar look to all other opera articles based on guidelines established by the Project over some years.

An anonymous editor, User:69.196.137.210, reverted the entire changes, thus returning it to its original format. Regardless of whether a year-month-day (in numbers only) is an acceptable format, the international standard of day-month (in letters) - year has been the Project's format established by consensus.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that IP is User:Anne Delong; creator of this article. I understand this can be frustrating but I'm asking you for some extra patience and to WP:AGF as Anne is still getting accustomed to Wikipedia. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the anonymous edit - I had to use another computer and forgot I wasn't logged in. I had recently been reading the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so I thought that reverting with an explanation was the proper protocol. If the YYYY-MM-DD format is no longer acceptable, shouldn't someone change the guidelines so that others aren't mislead and waste their time? As a techie person and former librarian who's had to do a lot of filing, I cringe at the use of specific-to-general instead of general-to-specific data formats, but I can get used to it, I guess. Are there other "consensus" items that are not in the style guide that I should know about? Anne Delong 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Anne, first of all, you need to understand a few things about Wikipedia: we have: only one rule, policies, guidelines, and essays. The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is just an essay, not a rule, nor a policy, nor a guideline. We also have another essay, titled WP:ONLYREVERT, which argues that we should revert only when it is utterly necessary to do so. Regardless of all this, you can claim WP:IAR if you beleive that your actions will be improving Wikipedia.

Now, about what User:Viva-Verdi is exposing: Wikipedians usually follow the guidelines set by WikiProjects and tend to listen and follow their advice. However, WikiProjects do not own articles, nor have any authority whatsoever on establishing policies.

My advice on all this is simple: be very very careful when performing a revert and do it only when it is utterly necessary to do so. In my humble opinion, User:Viva-Verdi's changes had merit and didn't justify a revert.

You must also understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy which means that we don't have to follow due process nor adhere to policies or processes: WP:IAR governs us all. So, in conclusion, don't revert just because, make sure that your reverts are utterly necessary and justified.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that I won't suddenly find the Productions section reorganized back to the way it was before you changed it, because I think your organization is better. I intend to add more details about each production now that I have acquired the original programs for several of the productions, and the chronological organization works well for that. By the way, the photo looks better in the infobox - thanks. Anne Delong 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs)

Well, I didn't make any changes to the Productions section until today. Now it appears as one short paragraph with a bit of variation in the wriyting style to make it a bit more interesting.

When you expand the section, you can use separate paragraphs for each production or each year - or whatever, but it will read as text rather than just a long list of titles.

Overall, in reponse to the note above, I'd say that Wikipedia works on consensus: in this case, the major of editors involved with opera articles believes that a certain look and style is appropriate, that each article should contain similar information, formatted in a similar fashion, rather than have each one appear at the whim of a particular editor.

So thamks for contributions, Anne: you can only make this look better. A wholesale revert of everything that's been done to an article is never a good idea, but I wanted to demonstrate what a formatted article (Refs, ext. links, etc) was all about. Other major things should be discussed here before any major changes.

This article is now on my Watchlist of 1600+ opera articles.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anne, to add to what User:Viva-Verdi said.. we also operate on a crucial mantra: assume good faith. So when Viva-Verdi made some changes, as an editor you had to assume he was making those changes in good faith. Regarding reverting, Viva-Verdi is right, please do not revert as a whole. When you reverted Viva-Verdi's changes you also reverted other modifications that improved the article. Like Viva-Verdi said, thank you very much for all your contributions, we also treat newcomers very well and tend to be more patient and lenient with them. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oprhan status as of January 2012[edit]

I noticed there's another article, Sherman Yellen, that mentions a Toronto Light Opera Company. Perhaps that article can link to this one so that it stops being an orphan? Is the opera company being referred to in the Yellen article the Toronto Light Opera Association or the Toronto Civic Light Opera Company? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not the same group. It is a much more modern organization, with all different people. Maybe one article or the other needs a distinguishing sentence. Anne Delong 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs)

Accomplishments of Bert Scarborough[edit]

Unsure of what "...and Bert Scarborough, who accomplished 30 productions with..." means. What does accomplish mean here? Performed in? Directed? A combination? Thanks, almost-instinct 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by someone, thanks almost-instinct 11:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation links of notable members[edit]

Two of the notable members in the infobox are blue linked. Neither seems to go to the correct destination; can someone check, and if necessary disambiguate them, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: now red links almost-instinct 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

I have posted on line PDF versions of three programmes from the productions of the Toronto Light Opera Association. Two of them contain a history of the organization up to that date. The URL is http://tloa.timetraces.ca. These new sources should prove helpful in making the page more accurate. Going to bed now, 2 a.m. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did this organisation fold up or change names? Is there anything they are doing today under a different name?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the organization is no longer in existence. The most likely reason is that most of the cast members were young people in their twenties, who married, had children and left the organization faster than replacements were found. However, the encyclopedia says that the organization kept going until 1955, so there may be more productions to be found between 1950 and 1955.

I added some information from the programs, and also combined the paragraphs and chronology into one. If people don't like the result, it can be made back into paragraphs by removing the bold dates. I have kept a copy of the bulleted list in case anyone wants that back. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the combined result: presents the chronology clearly, but gives space for an expansive tone when needed. almost-instinct 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Mawson[edit]

FYI: I did a search on Google about Howard Mawson and came up with a few reliable sources that establish his notability. Perhaps an article on him should be created to give more weight to this article and its ecosystem? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. I'm not sure that I have time do do it right now. It would certainly get rid of one of the red links. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is taken care of! I guess Elizebeth Mawson is next. Eventually I'd like to make a page for Alfred Kidney. There's not much on the open web about him, but there are at least a hundred references to him in the Toronto papers. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created the Alfred Kidney page (which see)—Anne Delong (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]