Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 108

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 Archive 106 Archive 107 Archive 108 Archive 109 Archive 110 → Archive 115
Archives Table of Contents

Happy Birthday Rossini

One of my very favourite opera composers. He doesn't get many chances to celebrate February 29th. He's on the Google main page. The article is receiving a lot of attention today, mostly positive. It really does need a lot of work. The talk page is receiving a fair amount of silliness and William Tell Overture came in for a pointless "improvement". Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of mine too (as you would expect!). I've seen 18 of his operas and will clock up another at Santa Fe later this year. --GuillaumeTell 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Mezzo-soprani with similar names

For a while we've had two pages to describe two mezzo-sopranos of similar age, and both likely to have international careers: Jennifer Johnston (English mezzo-soprano) and Jennifer Johnson (American mezzo-soprano). I see that the American has changed her stage name to Jennifer Johnson Cano (see here). How should we progress?

I think that Jennifer Johnson (American mezzo-soprano) can be happily moved to Jennifer Johnson Cano. Given that there are other Jennifer Johnsons should the English one retain both the "English" and the "mezzo-soprano" bits? And also the line at the top of the article that currently says "This article is about the English opera singer. For the American opera singer of a similar name, see Jennifer Johnson (American mezzo-soprano)" almost-instinct 10:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done the basic move, hence the blue link for Jennifer Johnson Cano. Advice for what (not) to do with the English mezzo appreciated! almost-instinct 10:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As the creator of both articles, I whole heartedly support the move to Jennifer Johnson Cano. This google search also indicates Johnson Cano is the name she is now being billed under and written about in the press. This article in The Washington Post and this article in The New York Times would make nice reference additions to the aticle. As for the English mezzo, I suppose we could just move it to Jennifer Johnston (mezzo-soprano). I see no reason to necessarily identify her as English in the dab title. FYI, Johnston is making her US debut shortly as a soloist with the Dallas Symphony. She is also scheduled to appear in her first opera in Germany during the 2012-2013 season. It is likely that both singers will have international careers in years to come.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I suppose that having the link to Jennifer Johnson Cano at the top of the Jennifer Johnston (English mezzo-soprano) page would be sufficient protection against confusion. Thanks for the advice. I'll get on with that almost-instinct 16:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
btw I listened to clips on their websites - they don't sound dissimilar either! almost-instinct 16:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that after these page moves there's no need for hatnotes at the top of either article (see WP:NAMB). The only hatnote that is still required is the one at Jennifer Johnston. --GuillaumeTell 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly when JJC changed her name - presumably within the last 18 months since 4m4 made the pages - presumably some people will have some memory of JJC as just JJ and deserve some guidance? almost-instinct 17:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
But anyone who types in Jennifer Johnson will find her at the top of the dab page. --GuillaumeTell 18:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, sorry, I hadn't thought of that almost-instinct 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bizet's Carmen is at peer review

Any comments would be welcome, either on the peer review page or on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Opera will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in opera; as performers, writers, characters, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Very nice! -- kosboot (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Films about opera

Category:Films about opera, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion with a lot of messy categorization. I've added my 2 cents there.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It's long closed, but I would have proposed a three-way split so that Rick (film) would be in the "based on" category while Giuseppe Verdi's Rigoletto Story (!) would be listed with "film versions of operas". I'm not sure if What's Opera, Doc? is really based on operas or about opera, though. Sparafucil (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Duponchel

There is a new article, started by User:pkeets, which I renamed from Charles Duponchel to Henri Duponchel based on a single source, Charlton's compendium The Cambridge Companion to Grand Opera (2003). Charlton based his change on a determination by Jean-Louis Tamvaco (2000), which I have not yet seen. Notably Ivor Guest also uses the name Henri Duponchel. (I would imagine he knows Tamvaco. [Update: Ivor Guest wrote the preface for Tamvaco's book OCLC 466763365.]) In any case, we would appreciate additional input on this question (and to the article, for that matter, since there appears to be a lot of material on Duponchel scattered around in various sources). See Talk:Henri Duponchel. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

see my note at Talk:Henri Duponchel.--Smerus (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I came upon a pkeets article yesterday (see this diff!) - (s)he has already created 825 articles - good going ..... --GuillaumeTell 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Stanford Olsen

I just created the page for this lovely, retired American tenor. The online sources for information on his career aren't very good, and I'll have to do some digging about. Help would be very much appreciated! almost-instinct 23:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I fleshed out the lead, the early part of his life and education, and I put together a prose paragraph of his Met career. Much more could be written on his international appearances and performances with other US opera companies. His concert career could also use more attention. I'm not a big fan of the table archiving his Met career. Prose is preferable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am a big fan of tables having tables like that, as they contain so much information and, if one chooses to examine them, one can see the way a career opens up. But, more to the point, we now have both table and prose which is lovely and helpful for all kinds of readers. Thank you for finding all the biographical stuff; knowing nothing about him whatsoever, I was finding it difficult to know where to start.
On a personal (and thus irrelevent) level I would like to point out that tables like the one I created require a certain amount of effort, firstly in collating the information and secondly in formatting, so being faced with with "I'm not a big fan of the table archiving his Met career. Prose is preferable", as the only comment, left me somewhat crestfallen :-/ almost-instinct 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to discourage you. My concerns for the table are more related to the fact that I think the table makes the article rather too one sided towards Olsen's Met career (ie. WP:Undue Weight). It completely overshadows his work elesewhere, both with other opera houses/companies, and more importantly his career as a concert artist (which in actuality has been the bulk of his professional career). In the big scheme of things, 164 performances at the Met is a relatively small number when you consider the overall body of work in his career. I would similarlily oppose Met performance tables on most other biographical articles as the majority of performers have highly diversified careers which are not limited to performances with any one particular company. Pavarotti clocked in nearly 400 performances at the Met, but a Met performance table at his article wouldn't be appropriate either for the same reasons.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In general I see your point; in this instance it struck me as appropriate, as his time at the Met - starting with winning the Met's annual auditions - formed the backbone of his stage career. I agree that there is plenty more to be added to this page, and am confident that once it is done there won't be undue weight. When considering the low number of his performances, one should remember the extreme brevity of his stage career. To return to the more general issue of using the Met's vgd archives, the only other singer for whom I've done a table like this was Robert Merrill - given that his stage career barely existed outside the Met it seemed highly appropriate. I agree with you about Pavarotti. almost-instinct 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page move Madame Chrysanthème

The recent move of Madame Chrysanthème (and not fixing any of the incoming links) to Madame Chrysanthème (opera) was a mistake. The usurped page (Madame Chrysanthème) serves no function as it has only one linked article, the opera. If an article on Loti's novel ever should get written, it can be accommodated with a hatnote at the opera or a page Madame Chrysanthème (disambiguation) might be created. I suggest to revert the move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But maybe you could ask martial arts fan User:Shawnc why (s)he made the move before getting an admin to revert. (The unnecessary dab page Madame Chrysanthème has also been incompetently set up.) --GuillaumeTell 22:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out -- basically I tried to wikify a reference to the novel at Madame Butterfly but was brought to the article about the opera instead. I've created a stub for the novel. Sorry about the incorrectly set up disambiguation page. Feel free to revert "Madame Chrysanthème (opera)" to Madame Chrysanthème, or move the latter to a proper disambiguation page. I'm not an admin so I can only perform the latter. Shawnc (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The page name for stub for the novel you created, Madame Chrysanthème (novel)), has an extra closing parenthesis; I suggest you move the article to Madame Chrysanthème (novel). As for the process: it would have been appropriate to consult WP:Moving a page#Usurping a page title before the move. There, a discussion before such actions is recommended and "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." There are currently four incoming links at Madame Chrysanthème that need fixing, some with more than one occurrence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the page title for Madame Chrysanthème (novel). Bit of a mess really. I suggest moving the opera back to its old title, unless there is strong evidence that neither the opera nor the opera is primary. And if there is to be a disambig page (pretty unnecessary), then it should be Madame Chrysanthème (disambiguation). Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That was my original position, too. But now we have a stub on the novel, and there were only 4 links to the disambiguation page involved (now fixed), so I think the effort with WP:RM is not worth it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Opera and a load of misc stuff

There seems to be an awful lot of clutter at the bottom of what should be our flagship article, notably in the See also section and the over-prominent Performing arts box, viz:

Do we really need any of this? --GuillaumeTell 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (away for a few days, back on Thursday for the flak)

I generally agree about the clutter, but I suspect it's difficult to argue against the template {{Performing arts}}. On the other hand, the "See also" section should be removed entirely. What's currently listed there should either be linked in the main article or be present in the navigation boxes, or is indeed marginal, like "Orchestral enhancement". Once the "See also" section is removed, there is no room for the template "Performing arts", so it may have to go, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say to just add {{Opera lists}} to the bottom. We already have {{Vocal music}} there, so no need for listing Voice type again in the "see also" (plus it's linked in the article itself) . Ballet is pointless and should be (probably is?) linked somewhere in the article, if appropriate. Outline of opera is a redirect to List of opera topics and could probably just be added to the Opera lists template. Orchestral enhancement, very marginal and doesn't belong. As for the ghastly pink and white {{Performing arts}}, the Performing arts article is linked in the first sentence. That article has the whole template, and that's more than enough. I'd say quietly remove it and if there's a squawk, tell them to make an alternative horizontal navbox for the bottom of the page. It's pretty standard to put the {{Portal}} template in the "see also" section. By the time we're finished, that would be the only thing there—good! ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Being colorblind, I wasn't offended by the colors, but couldn't that be easily edited (by someone with better color vision than I have)? These navigational templates usually appear in every article that is in the template. (Opera appears in bold because that's how they work, right?) I would say, either we nominate the whole navigational template for deletion, or it should probably stay in the Opera article. (And it certainly doesn't seem to make sense to remove Opera from the template.) Regarding ballet, it is linked in in the section on French opera, so it doesn't need to be in the "See also". Orchestral enhancement probably badly needed links, so it was added here. (That article does mention opera in the lead. But it seems kind of like a contemporary take on something that has really been happening since Monteverdi.) Actually, I don't find this "See also" section all that objectionable overall. It's nicely organized and formatted, and possibly many readers might find it useful, and it's located out of the way (in the correct place). --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's only a pale pink, so could be worse, but still naff and very clunky. I personally loathe intrusive vertical navboxes when they are only tangentially of interest to readers of a particular article. They're much better as collapsed footers, but I'm not fussed either way, as long as it isn't stuck up at the top of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of modifying the "Performing arts" navbox template so that there is a collapsed footer option is an excellent idea. Perhaps this could be accomplished by rewriting the template with a paramater value specifying the format. Then editors could select the format depending on the specific situation. In the collapsible form it could go either at the bottom of the "See also" section (or even at the bottom of the article, altho I would much favor the "See also" section). I also noticed that the list of "List articles" could be replaced with this:

If both these navboxes were in a format similar to this collapsible "Opera lists" template, then they would fit nicely on top of each other and give a much cleaner look. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC) {{Template:Navbox performing arts}} I made this one as an alternative. The original is a mess, and I don't know how to modify it to give two options, besides which, it is protected. I'll add this to the Opera article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've done it, I'm not sure it's an improvement. Please look at it and either revert these changes, or maybe we can figure something else out. I moved all of these navbox templates to one place, the "See also" section which is for links to Wikipedia articles. In spite of the common practice to put them at the bottom, they're not really "External links" or "Categories", so shouldn't they be in "See also"? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Could the "See also" section be moved to just above "External links"? I would expect that if we just delete the "See also" section and put all the navboxes at the bottom, someone may come along and recreate it and start adding links that are already found in the navboxes.] --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I notice that locating the "See also" section below the "References" section has already been employed at List of opera houses and List of opera companies. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Per MOS:APPENDIX, the "See also" section is the first of the appendices, not the last. We should stick to that not only for consistency across our own articles, but with the rest of the encyclopedia. List of opera houses and List of opera companies should be changed to conform with this as well. Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I confess that I was unaware of the three navboxes already at the bottom of Opera when I first added the new Template:Navbox performing arts to the "See also" section. This made me think that maybe a lot of readers totally miss seeing them. At least the "See also" appears in the TOC. I suppose to conform to the guidelines, all of the navboxes in the Opera article should be moved to the bottom. I see this organization is also recommended at WP:Writing better articles#Standard appendices. Perhaps the "See also" section should be deleted altogether, but then where does the link to the Opera portal go? On the other hand, there seems to be some flexibility with regard to navboxes, some at the top, some at the bottom, although rarely in the "See also" section. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of where we put the navboxes, I don't think we need the "Vocal music" one. It seems to mostly duplicate links already in the other navboxes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Susan Bullock

I linked to Susan Bullock and found a rather old article, hardly wikified. Help? Perhaps also a copyright problem? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, the article had a large, unwikified chunk added to it just 2 months ago. I've taken Signora Voceditenore's red and blue pencils to it, removing some of the puffery and close paraphrasing from bach-cantatas.com and fact-tagging the rest. Pity really. She's a notable singer and deserves something better, but at least it's slightly better than it was before. Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Weigle

I expanded Sebastian Weigle, much more could be added, and see above for his Brünnhilde, termed Pumuckl in a FAZ review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hermine Haselböck

New article found: Hermine Haselböck, moved it there and started wls, more wikifying needed, source? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You did a great job with this, Gerda, especially the puffery-removal.;-). I've moved 3 external links to a sources section and formatted them. At some point they can be moved to inline citations. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Halévy

Remembering that it is his 150th deathday on the 17th - I have now done start(ish) articles for Clari, La tentation and Le Roi et le batelier - User:Robert.Allen has added much to La tentation and I have put it up for a DYK, hoping it may make it for the 17th - if anyone is wiling to review it for DYK that could be a help.....--Smerus (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move of article on Spontini's Olympie

I have proposed moving Olimpie to Olympie. This is based on Tamvaco's comprehensive 2000 book on the history of the Paris Opera under the Restoration, the BnF "Notice de spectacle", plus some other references. The current title may reflect information from The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, which seems to be incorrect, although many of the footnoted sources in the article also give the spelling "Olympie". See the move request at Talk:Olimpie. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been much feedback on this, perhaps not surprising, since it's not a very well known work. However, after learning some more about it, I am beginning to have second thoughts about my proposed rename. What I am thinking, is that we should stick with Olimpie, since it was apparently the title that was used for his final ("definitive"?) 1826 revised version. (Or should we always prefer the title used for the premiere?) Perhaps some other editors can leave some feedback at Talk:Olimpie. Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A lot of these "contradictions" are simply the result of the preferences of type-setters in the case of pre-20th century works and the fact that the spellings of many words are (or were) in free variation. Note that on the autograph score Spontini himself spells it "Olimpie". Ditto with Rossini's wife, Olympe Pélissier. Her first name is also in free-variation in sources. Rossini spelled her name "Olimpe" in his letters to her. Incidentally, the Pélissier article is a dreadful stub. Anyhow, back to the opera... As long as the re-direct is in place, I don't think it matters much. Voceditenore (talk) 12:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Janáček

Leoš Janáček is a new GA nominee (see Talk:Leoš Janáček). --GuillaumeTell 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Elena D'Angri or Elena Angri

This is a new article, the subject is in my opinion (it was not clear from the initial revision) a renowned 19th century operatic singer known in the US and Europe. I'm not entirely sure, therefore I'm asking here for verification. Her birthdate (1824) is questioned by the creator of our article, however, it seems to be confirmed by some of the sources found on G-books. Thanks for any help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done a bit of basic clean-up, referencing, etc. and added an image. I have a feeling this may have been a prelude to publicity for a self published author and his book. See [1]. Never mind, at least Elena Angri is notable, and the article should be fairly easy to fill out from reliable sources. I'm currently working on another prima donna, but may be able to get to Madame Angri next week. Voceditenore (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
PS Hilarious picture of her en travesti (complete with moustache and goatee!) here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance, it is competent and helpful. Sometimes it is better to ask before deleting. But the image is ... poor Madame! :D --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories: Operas based on novels / Operas based on plays

I fully agree with recent changes made to Madama Butterfly by user:Vlastimil Svoboda. I propose to rename the above categories "Operas with a libretto based on a novel" / "Operas with a libretto based on a play". Regards. 81.83.141.136 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Making it clear in an article that the libretto is based on a play, novel, etc. is fine. However, there's no need to rename this category, and especially to such a clumsy wording. It goes without saying that when referring to an opera being based on a play, etc., this refers to its libretto. I've annotated the category pages for Category:Operas based on plays and Category:Operas based on novels to make this explicit. But, frankly, I consider even that unnecessary. Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

April OoM and CoM

I've provisionally filled in Composer of the Month (which focuses on improving opera composers' biographies and articles relating to their works) with the following:

The Composer of the Month for April is Friedrich von Flotow. This month marks the 200th anniversary of his birth.
His biography article needs expansion and better referencing. Of his 30 operas, we only have articles on Alessandro Stradella and Martha. His breakthorugh opera was Le naufrage de la Méduse (1839) while his last major success was L'ombre which premiered at the Opéra-Comique in 1870. We also lack an article on Friedrich Wilhelm Riese, the librettist of Martha and Alessandro Stradella.

Any other suggestions?

As for Opera of the Month (which focuses on improving existing opera articles and the coverage of related subjects). Is there anything that people particularly want to see here? If not I'll cobble together something on March 31st. Some possibilities:

Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bizet's Carmen is a Featured Article candidate

Comments can be made as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carmen/archive2. Voceditenore (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Robert le diable (opera)

I am just trying, slowly, to bring this into better shape, (as Covent Garden is at last reviving it at the end of this year). But I note that, ridiculously, the article is titled as above, whilst Robert le diable redirects to the longer title. I presume this needs an administrator to rectify.....? --Smerus (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

done, hurrah. Many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I've more or less completed my first assault on the article, and am considering possibly working it up to GA. Thoughts and opinions would be welcomed. Someone might also reassess it anyway as I believe it can now qualify beyond start class.--Smerus (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's looking brilliant! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I have put it up for GA - if anyone wants to have a go at review......--Smerus (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month follow-up

Hi everyone! I just wanted to follow up with your project and see if any article creations or improvements took place in regards to Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month! If so, it'd be great if you could please post your article outcomes on the..you guessed it...WWHM outcome page! Thanks everyone for all your efforts! Sarah (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I had already updated that page with the creation of Elisabetta Manfredini-Guarmani, the upload of two images (File:Elisabetta Manfredini.jpg and File:Elena Angri by Charles Baugniet.jpg) and the eight women who appeared in the March "In this month" feature on Portal:Opera. I also added (although it's not under the Opera Project banner) the DYK for Giulietta Guicciardi. If anyone else knows of something I've missed, just go ahead and add it there. The page isn't broken down by projects, so if you've created or expanded an article about a woman in any other field, just add it too. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

InfoBoxes?

I was surprised at the lack of an InfoBox for Luciano Pavarotti on his page and was about to add one. Then I noticed in the wiki comments the restriction: "please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Infoboxes". I came here to WikiProject_Opera, and there is no information about InfoBoxes at all. This suggests to me that the stricture against InfoBoxes might be outdated. Can anyone provide any information about this? I think an InfoBox for Pavarotti would be very useful. Thanks. SeanAhern (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The main WikiProject Opera page was reorganised a few months ago, and a number of sub-pages were created in order to reduce clutter and provide the page with a cleaner look. It looks as if there may be a number of pointers from elsewhere to the older version of the page, including the one you spotted. However, the (ahem!) good news is that the stricture against InfoBoxes is alive and kicking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_guidelines#Infoboxes. Feel free to follow the links there to the numerous previous InfoBox discussions, and, if you wish, initiate another discussion here. Meanwhile, I'll try to update the pages where the old link still exists. --GuillaumeTell 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Lorenzo da Ponte

I was very surprised to find out today that our article on Lorenzo da Ponte is quite short, considering his importance and the amount of information available on him. Anyone want to tackle an expansion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

While we are at it, the article on Eugène Scribe is even feebler. Perhaps we should dedicate May to librettists?--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That would be a good idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

PRODs

For interest, I have PRODed Eurotrash (opera) and CNN opera.--Smerus (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is deletion really the best answer here? I have seen these terms in reviews in multiple publications, including The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, and Opera News among others. Given that multiple notable reviewers of different significant productions (i.e. operas at The Met, San Francisco Opera, Lyric Opera of Chicago, etc) are using these terms I think improvement should be the answer. These are notable neologisms IMO.4meter4 (talk)
I agree with the doubt expressed by 4meter4. "Eurotrash" is a widely used term to describe opera productions; see Google News Archive search and general Google search. Similar remarks have been made at Talk:Eurotrash (opera). These Google searches for "CNN opera" show similar uses, although largely concentration on John Adams. More importantly, CNN opera had been prodded in July 2006, so it has to go to WP:AFD now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
We saw a similar article (deleted) with "Gonzo opera." In my opinion, it would be better to write an article about "operas based on current events" and discuss the neologism in - the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I personally believe these are clear candidates for deletion. One should not confuse adjectives used as shorthand by a few journalists, with genres of opera which can be clearly defined. The test is that these articles had been lying fallow and and orphaned for a number of years, which indicates they don't have much to say. The alternative to deletion for anyone who is determined is to make a proper article. Roscelese's suggestion seems more sensible to me in this context.--Smerus (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
They really should be deleted. This is more of a job for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. See WP:DICDEF. --Folantin (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course they are not opera genres and the articles don't claim that. Both articles well exceed a dictionary definition. Eurotrash used to be mentioned in Opera (and I agree withe removal of that paragraph), and Ponnelle's article mentions it as a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle – so there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Michael. These articles do not make claims to be opera genres. Both articles are about neologisms which are describing certain trends in opera (i.e. subject matter for new operas and staging practices in contemporary revivals). Neither has anything directly to do with genre. Further, the fact that the articles are orphans is irrelevent. What is relevent is whether the articles themselves meet the requirements for notability at wikipedia. There are many notable articles on wikipedia which have been orphaned for years, including some on historic opera singers. It would be a bad practice to begin proding articles just because they are orphans. In this case the test should be the notability requirements at WP:NEO. I have participated in several AFD discussions on neologisms; most of which I have nominated for deletion. I suspect that if either of these articles were nominated they would pass an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that any of the objections raised by 4meter4 or Michael Bednarek give the articles any more status than the need for a Wiktionary listing. Neologisms do not automatically qualify for notability - and a quote from the SF Chronicle does not, per se, give that qualification, either. If people are seriously concerned, let them seek to create proper articles, reputably sourced. If they can't or won't, let these two worthless items go. The underlying issue raised here, which we ought perhaps to consider more seriously, is the absence of [a] decent article[s] on opera production and its history. In such a context the proposal of Roscelese would be valuable.--Smerus (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't "Eurotrash" dealt with under Regietheater anyway? Maybe "Eurotrash (opera)" should simply be redirected there. --Folantin (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, tho I see that the Regietheater article also needs some work.....--Smerus (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Regietheater (previously entitled Producer's opera) is a more neutral term than the derogatory "Eurotrash (opera)" and, once it has been improved by the addition of references to WP:RS articles on productions by, say, Wieland Wagner, Walter Felsenstein, Peter Sellars, Christopher Alden, Calixto Bieito, Harry Kupfer, David Pountney, Claus Guth et al, plus a look at de:Regietheater by people who know more German than I do, it could turn into quite a respectable article. --GuillaumeTell 16:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have redirected Eurotrash (opera) to Regietheater, and have done some initial rewrite to the latter, merging information. Still a long way to go, as Guillaume points out.--Smerus (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit late to this discussion (thinking before typing for once). "CNN opera" and "Eurotrash" are both labels which were essentially unnecessary, but coined in a derogatory spirit; I think the solution being enacted - referencing these terms within other articles - is the correct one. Um, I hope you all found that useful :-/ almost-instinct 16:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, what about CNN opera? How about listing it in List of opera genres with brief explanation of the term, and giving a redirect from the existing article?--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But is "CNN opera" really an opera genre? I don't think so. Better to leave it where it is for now than to be guilty of original research.4meter4 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that CNN Opera isn't an opera genre. But is the term CNN opera actually in much use these days, and is it a purely American term? To me, it sounds like someone's bright idea that never really caught on. How many operas apart from Nixon in China, The Death of Klinghoffer and Anna Nicole qualify? I see, in fact, that a Google search combining "Anna Nicole" and "CNN opera" gets 110 results, but a lot of those are duplicates, most of them describing it as a "headline opera" as well as a CNN opera (removing the words "headline opera" reduces the list to 56 mentions see here but some of those are duplicates, too). I'd still send the article to AfD if it can't be PRODded. --GuillaumeTell 15:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Marian Anderson

There is a discussion on the talk page of this article about including an infobox in the article. Surely some of you have opinions about this, so you are welcome to join in the discussion. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ursula Schröder-Feinen

I found Ursula Schröder-Feinen as a one line stub, took a bit from es, more from Bayreuth, there's room for improvement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Prokofiev operas

User:Drbogdan is adding to all the Prokofiev operas a new Prokofiev opera template and also "opera topics" & "performing arts" templates (see e.g. The Love for Three Oranges). The oepras are already listed in a dropdown template at the head of each article. Are we in overkill area here?--Smerus (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are. But I've been away this evening at Opera North's Carousel and it's now past my bedtime! --GuillaumeTell 23:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we are. I saw it too yesterday. It's also got the red-linked operas on it. I guess the only good thing about it is that it's at the bottom of the page and relatively unobtrusive. If nothing else, maybe set it to auto collapse? Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Following Michael Bednarek I have removed the opera topics/ performing arts templates from the remaining operas - but I have left the Prokofiev opera templates for the moment.--Smerus (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And I have notified Drbogdan that his new template {{Prokofiev opera}} duplicates the established template {{Prokofiev operas}}, and that in these circumstances I would propose to remove it.--Smerus (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:Drbogdan#Prokofiev_opera_template:

Prokofiev opera template

Hi there - I see you have added a new template {{Prokofiev opera}} to the articles in this category. You may not have noted that there is already an established template {{Prokofiev operas}} on all the articles, which your template duplicates - I have mentioned this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Prokofiev_operas. I didn't want to remove your template without notifying you - but if it is OK with you I will edit it out. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Smerus - Thank you *very much* for your comments about the newly made Prokofiev opera template - yes, I knew of the other Prokofiev opera/image template but thought the new one, more complete and more consistent w/ other Prokofiev templates, could coexist on the same article page - and provide another way, more familiar perhaps to some, of accessing related articles about Prokofiev - also, I was considering expanding the various templates for other Prokofiev articles, including the Prokofiev Opera ones, in the same way as had been done w/ the Prokofiev Ballet articles - like, for example, the various related Ballet templates at the bottom of the Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) and Trapeze (Prokofiev) articles - in any case - hope my reply helps in some way - thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Prokofiev operas continued

I am easy about either template, but it is absurd to have two, and moreover the standard opera template formula is {{Foo operas}} -so if people want to go with the new one, the old one should be deleted and the new one renamed - opinions? --Smerus (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should delete the old one, at least yet. Is he planning to make a Prokoviev mega-template with links to other articles, lists. etc. about him or his works? If so, that could also be in the article at the bottom. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
@Voceditenore - If this comment applies to me - Yes, I was considering making a "Prokofiev mega template" (currently in process in fact - may take a bit of time of course) - the "Prokofiev mega template" being considered may be similar to the Stravinsky mega template - hope that's entirely ok - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this of course makes sense now we are informed of the grand plan, thus I agree let's await the mega version.--Smerus (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - Thank you for your comments - and encouragement - if interested, my *very beginning* efforts re the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may be viewed (& edited if you like) at the following:

comments, additions, modifications, etc, always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems the "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template may now be sufficiently ready for posting - and has been posted to several relevant Prokofiev articles (notably, Sergei Prokofiev & Romeo and Juliet) - at least for starters - editing and/or updating, as with any Wikipedia article/template, may be needed and is expected to be ongoing - but much of the basic Template effort may now be done - please feel free to edit, modify, change and related as needed of course - Thanks for the recent help and comments with this project - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
For articles on Prokofiev's operas, I don't see this template ({{Sergei Prokofiev}}) or the horizontal {{Prokofiev opera}} as an improvement over the existing template {{Prokofiev operas}}.
  1. The mega template is too big; it overwhelms the articles, which are mostly short.
  2. It contains red links unlinked entries; this goes against the very purpose of a navigation template.
  3. It contains links to disambiguation pages; this will confuse readers.
  4. It contains links to REDIRECT pages which prevents autobolding of entries in the template when visiting those pages.
  5. It contains many duplicate/repeated targets: The Love for Three Oranges; Romeo and Juliet; Cinderella appears three times in a row; War and Peace.
  6. It contains non-Prokofiev links: Pushkin, Akhmatova
The horizontal {{Prokofiev opera}} shows unhelpful red links. There are probably good arguments in favour of horizontal templates placed at the bottom of articles over the current style of side boxes at the articles' top. Should Prokofiev's operas be the start of a project-wide redesign of these templates?
As for a demonstration of template clutter, Romeo and Juliet, with six templates, is a helpful example: three of those templates don't contain the work, one template appears in its entirety in another template; two templates would be enough. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek - Thanks for your comments - perhaps the "Sergei Prokofiev mega-template" could be *greatly shorten* by *eliminating* the less important red links and other "disputed" links - or *moving* such links to a "missing" (hidden) group not visible to the usual reader - this was done, in fact, in the present "Igor Stravinsky mega-template" - as for the six templates at the bottom of Romeo and Juliet (Prokofiev) - they're useful (and educational) to me although I can understand that they may be too much for some - nonetheless, I'm ok w/ whatever is decided - hope the above helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that Drbogdan has undertaken, but I cannot feel that the template is appropriate. I basically agree with Michael Bednarek's reservations. But to put them in a broader context: what is the actual use or purpose of this giant template? What are users - especially perhaps those who know not too much about Prokofiev or his works - likely to feel when confronted with this monster? I feel it is more likely to bewilder than assist. It would be easier and clearer (from the opera perspective), if the objective is to enable readers to place the operas in a wider context, simply to provide a link in the older Prokofiev template to List of compositions by Sergei Prokofiev, where all the works are set out more clearly and with a little additional information.--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Provided that the red links, "black" unlinked titles, and explication are removed and the template is by default collapsed, I think it could be quite useful to the reader. But it shouldn't be an alternative form of the article on Prokofiev himself which it has kind of turned into. Voceditenore (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Ok - the new "Sergei Prokofiev" mega-template has now been trimmed in half (removed red-links & black unlinked titles & related - per discussion) - please understand the mega-template is new (less than a day old at the moment) and the various remaining links may need checking (re disambiguation pages, redirects and the like) - please feel free to help w/ this and any related improvements of course - links to new future Prokofiev articles may need to be added - in any case - hope the new Prokofiev mega-template is now better and more useful - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking much better now. I do have one suggestion... Under Related articles, you have Composer (piped link to Sergei Prokofiev) and Compositions (piped link to List of compositions by Sergei Prokofiev).·The first one is redundant to the big bold link at the top of the template and is potentially confusing to the reader as they will probably think it's an article about composers in general. I suggest leaving it out completely. The second one is also ambiguous (although not redundant). Perhaps just use the actual name of the list or shorten to "List of compositions by Prokofiev". Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd second Voce, but also add in that I find the links under piano music for three pieces, six pieces, ten pieces etc. a little confusing. The one pointing to R&J makes good sense, as there's a § on the page on the piano pieces (though perhaps the link could navigate to that § using #?) Just a minor thought - otherwise, looks great! Lackingdirection (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - yes, no problem - I *entirely* agree - the Composer link has been removed - the Compositions link is now List of compositions by Sergei Prokofiev - the Piano Music is now more clearly (hopefully) presented as follows -> Ten Pieces from "Romeo and Juliet" and Three Pieces & Six Pieces & Ten Pieces from "Cinderella" and Three Pieces from "War and Peace" - in any case - Thanks again for your suggestions - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Note at Category:Operas

I suggest that the current note at Category:Operas ("It has been agreed after discussion in the Wikipedia Opera Project that all opera title articles will be included in this main category to enable searching by users.") be replaced with the template intended for this purpose, {{All included}}, and a sentence referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Category guidelines be added. E.g.:

For further details, see the guide to categorizing opera-related articles of the WikiProject Opera.

This would place that category in line with other similar categories; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:All included. It might also be helpful if a link to WP:DUPCAT be placed at the first bullet point in Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Category guidelines#basic categories. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions. I've implemented both. Feel free to tweak. Voceditenore (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rock opera?

I noticed that Moon Landing (music drama) was added today to List of operas by title. It's a rock opera [2], which I was under the impression is a genre of musical and indeed Category:Rock operas appears in Category:Musical theatre. But I now discover that it also appears as a subcat of Category:Operas by genre. Shouldn't it be removed it from there? Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I also notice in Category:Operas by genre Category:Pornographic_operas, whose single component, (if it truly exists, I doubt qualifies, at least as far as this project is concerned.....--Smerus (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Lady Bumtickler's Revels. Apparently it does exist, but it was a piece of Victorian porn written as a spoof libretto. It's not an opera at all. I've removed all the opera cats from it so Category:Pornographic_operas is now empty and will no doubt be deleted. I was also bold and removed Category:Operas by genre from Category:Rock operas. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That was me in March 2011 removing Category:Operas, which had been added in February 2011, and instead adding Category:Operas by genre. I know that Rock Opera is not a recognised opera genre, but it seemed a helpful navigation device to have the Category:Rock operas appear somewhere in the opera tree. I failed to notice at the time the history of this category, where from its inception in 2004 the connection to the opera tree was disputed. My postion is that some of the works listed at Category:Rock operas can very well be regarded as operas, but the complete list is quite a hodge-podge, signified by that category's parent categories, Category:Rock music (ok), Category:Musical theatre (ok), Category:Concept albums (?).
As for Lady Bumtickler's Revels: we do have articles on opera librettos and we categorise them as such (Category:Opera libretti); the printed edition is inscribed: "A Comic Opera in Two Acts". It was probably a spoof and never performed, but the mere fact that a piece of literature described itself as opera libretto should lead to some categorisation within the opera tree.
With both these issues, we should not let our likes and dislikes or the apparent uncouthness of the subject cloud encyclopedic treatment. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Re 'Lady B' - this is not (as far as I am concerned) a matter of 'uncouthness'. WP defines libretto as ' the text used in an extended musical work'. I think this definition in in fact faulty, and intend to amend it to 'text used, or intended for....', (e.g. to allow for Wieland der Schmied (libretto)); but 'Lady B' whatever its author calls it does not fit either of these definitions; and indeed the article makes it clear that it is a 'spoof libretto'. Therefore, by encyclopedic treatment, should not be categorised as libretto or opera.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Lady B, I agree with Smerus. The work looks quite fascinating and the subject is encyclopedic. Don't know about its "couthness" or otherwise, but it was never intended to be performed as a comic opera. It was simply put in that form as a stylistic device by the author, along with obviously fictional "information" about the theatre where it "premiered". It strikes me as kind of analagous to a spoof presented by its author as a previously undiscovered verse from the New Testament. I wouldn't put in Category:New Testament verses. I guess it could go in Category:Opera libretti, but that seems like stretching it.
Re Rock operas, apart from a few possibly borderline outliers, they aren't operas, so I can't see how it could be an opera genre, any more than Chinese operas. Arguably some of the 'mainstream' musicals are virtually indistinguishable from operas and even performed in opera houses by opera companies (unlike "Rock operas"), but they aren't categorized as such on WP. At least up to now. Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Royal Opera, Covent Garden

It has been suggested at the talk page of Royal Opera, London that the title of the article should be changed to match that of the other company resident at the Royal Opera House, viz. The Royal Ballet. Thoughts on this would be welcome at Talk:Royal Opera, London#Name redux. Tim riley (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the discussion, now moved to The Royal Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Librettists of the month"

Just a reminder that per the suggestions here, I changed the May Composers of the Month to Librettists of the Month. Lorenzo da Ponte and Eugène Scribe (completely unreferenced!) are highlighted for improvement/expansion.

I'm going to be working on the Mombelli family and the two Rossini operas in the May Operas of the Month, so perhaps someone else could tackle one of the librettists? Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I have started work on both - the LdP needed a good deal of scouring first. Others of course are welcome to join in.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unfinished compositions completed by others

I'm having a discussion with someone over the use of this category for Schoenberg's Moses und Aron. Zoltan Kocsis was contracted to complete the 3rd act. But as this opera is, up to now, always performed in 2 acts, is it accurate to say that it has been completed by another? -- kosboot (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Zoltán Kocsis apparently set the third act, but the laptop on which the score was composed was stolen, see here. It all sounds a bit fishy to me. I don't think that the opera could be categorised as completed by another unless and until the third act has been performed. --GuillaumeTell 21:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems from here that it was indeed performed with Kocsis's ending so the category would be correct. (Full article available here in Hungarian if anyone is up to it :-} )--Smerus (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes User:Mishae

User:Mishae is installing infoboxes for a number of composers (see Special:Contributions/Mishae). Is there some agreed polite formula to request him to desist?--Smerus (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

…and apparently the editor is quite determined to continue. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually it seems he has now changed tack and is adding a preventative header (see here) , so perhaps he can be left to pursue this .....--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
What a time-sink the whole issue is. Drives me nuts. Most of the ones he had added e.g. this were at least very simple and innocuous, basically glorified image captions. Frankly, I don't mind those. Then we have this monstosity, addded by another editor three years ago during a previous infobox brouhaha. Someone should expand the lede, so the box can be reduced to something reasonable instead of a vertical but utterly un-nuanced version of the article. The really awful ones are the "color-coded" pop musician series that deface various classical instrumentalist, singer, and orchestra articles—complete with "Associated acts". Wimp that I am, when I see one of those on a bio article, I usually change it to a simple {{Infobox person}} with minimal parameters rather than get into yet another time-sink on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the 'time-sink' - and also that Mishae's examples were not too bad - the trouble is that what starts small is inevitably taken over by an 'improver' and ends up like your Granados example....--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Call me curmugeon, but sometimes I think it would be good to have a page with two columns, one labeled "things that contribute to Wikipedia" and the other labeled "Things which waste time and cause dissention on Wikipedia" and include examples like over-categorization and infoboxes. -- kosboot (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Romanticism template

People may be interested in the discussion here.--Smerus (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiple composer navboxes nominated for deletion

  • All navboxes with only 2 or 3 entries (batch deletion of 40+ navboxes). Discussion here.
  • All navboxes with only 1 entry (batch deletion of 7 navboxes), Discussion here.

- Voceditenore (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A random check of the 2/3-entry navboxes (all of which have been nominated for deletion) indicates that quite a few if these are still in the old infobox format instead of navbox. Once the dust settles, I'll try to get to these and switch them over.

By the way, I've preserved the code for the 7 single-entry navboxes (hopefully the only ones in serious danger of deletion, and which probably should be deleted) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Template drafts. They may prove useful if future opera articles are created for any of these composers, especially since they contain commented out lists of their other operas without articles yet. Besides, 4 of them have composer images. If/when they get deleted, we'll need to go back to the 4 articles in which those templates are currently transcluded and re-add the images. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Update The decision was "Keep" for all the 2 and 3 entry navboxes (thank goodness!). The 1 entry navboxes were deleted, but as per above, their code is preserved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Template drafts. In the meantime I've gone back to the 8 articles where the 1 entry navboxes were transcluded and added {{Italic title}} as well as the composer's portrait for the four composers who had one. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_108&oldid=1190141459"