Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 112
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 105 | ← | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | Archive 113 | Archive 114 | Archive 115 |
Stoepel
Robert Stoepel | |
|---|---|
 Photograph portrait (carte de visite), c. 1875 | |
| Born | Auguste Stoepel 1821 Berlin, Germany |
| Died | October 1, 1887 (aged 66) |
| Education |
|
| Occupations | |
| Era | Romantic |
| Known for |
|
| Notable work |
|
Realitity has been mentioned above. An infobox had been added to Robert Stoepel, reverted, re-added, self-reverted. Here is my approach, for discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- If this is about that particular article, it would be better to discuss that on the article's talk page, especially since it isn't even bannered by our project. If this is a general proposal that the OP use these kinds of infoboxes, here's my view... The infobox as currently filled out has has a couple of problems, the second one major.
- Firstly, it contradicts the text. Hiawatha is not an opera, it is a symphonic piece with vocal soloists. Secondly and most importantly, the "Influenced by" parameter is completely unsupported by the text, and is in fact a synthesis which may or may not not be correct. There is no reason to assume that just because he studied under the those three people, his actual music reflects theirs. No reliable sources are provided which have analyzed his work and noted the musical influence of one or more of his teachers. Nor are any composers' influences on his work discussed in the actual article. That whole "Influenced by" is a prime example of why these sorts of super-detailed infoboxes are inappropriate and create problems of their own. Similarly, Hiawatha was reasonably notable, but why was Aldershot listed his other "Notable work"?. What is notable about it? We don't even know if it was ever performed. All the WP article says is "While in London he wrote an opera called Aldershot"
- Having said that, if the "Influenced by" module were removed, and the notable works consisted of the only verifiably notable one (Hiawatha), correctly described, I have no problem in having it in the article. I also think it's wrong to revert the addition of an infobox without prior discussion on the article's talk page, especially when the article is also in the scope of other active WikiProjects who use them, e.g. WikiProject New York. When I encounter one that is inappropriate, e.g. Infobox musical artist, I simple convert it to infobox person, with limited parameters. I personally think that should be our approach in general. Voceditenore (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking, closer than I did. I leave my mistakes here, so that others see what you refer to. - It is partly a general example, partly for that article, so I will take the improved version to the article's talk. - I confess that I picked a second work more or less at random to fill an otherwise empty line ;) - You are right that the addition of an infobox should not simply be reverted but discussed, unfortunately that's not what I observe, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- ps: a detail - I didn't know what to do about his studies in Berlin. He may have studied at one of the institutions that became today's Berlin University of the Arts. de-WP has this on the history: "die kurfürstliche Academie der Mahler-, Bildhauer- und Architectur-Kunst (1696), dann das 1850 gegründete Stern’sche Städtische Konservatorium für Musik" which tells me that it was still called Akademie (and music isn't mentioned), when he studied. Do we know more? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was the one who began that article. Information about his pre-New York years was very hard to find. I found a little more about his French years and almost nothing about his German years (and nothing contemporaneous). I have found it dangerous to assume an individual studied at a particular institution - sometimes what they describe as a "conservatory" was just private studies - the description being purposely vague to disguise an unflattering background. Until we're able to find more information, I would leave it vague. -- kosboot (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Not that there aren't other problems with infoboxes, but I think its worth pointing out how terrible most infoboxes, such as the one above, are at being what they aspire to be. The straightforward facts that are given - place of birth/death/education, exact dates - aren't particularly useful. In the cases of Tippett or Rimbaud (or Mozart for that matter) one would find "artistically active" dates far more useful than birth and death. Also, a lot of the "information" in the infobox is subject to opinion: influences, notable works, known for - these are all subject to judgement calls. People aren't like settlements, with good solid data - location, population size, climate etc that can be presented plainly (or in case of the City of Leeds, not so plainly) Theoretically someone might design one that was flexible and thoughtful enough to actual be truly useful for us. I haven't seen one yet, and I'm not expecting one anytime soon. almost-instinct 09:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- If it's not useful to you it may still be useful to someone else, such as a blind person or someone not fluent in English, who wants to create a stub in a different language, linked to the English which happens to be the best information you can get on this composer anywhere. - The years and locations of activity are worth mentioning if clear - not in this case. More examples to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- We should have a third-rate infobox so that someone who doesn't speak english can create a fourth-rate stub on another wikipedia? What a service almost-instinct 15:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some misunderstandings. Who said "should"? Who said "who doesn't speak English"? You said "third-rate", the author thought differently (on the talk page, this version is only for history, because the comments refer to it). I think a whatever rate stub with an interwiki-link to this article is better than no info on the person in that other language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Further misunderstanding: I'm talking about infoboxes in general, not that particular one; I was presuming it was brought here as an illustration to help the general discussion. Had I wanted to discuss that one I would have gone to the talk page. More importantly: it is perfectly possible for a stub to be created from an article without the latter having an infobox of dubious utility dominating the top of the article almost-instinct 10:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- It was brought here to get from general to real. It s possible to create a stub from an article, but it may be easier if you have some internationally understandable key facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Further misunderstanding: I'm talking about infoboxes in general, not that particular one; I was presuming it was brought here as an illustration to help the general discussion. Had I wanted to discuss that one I would have gone to the talk page. More importantly: it is perfectly possible for a stub to be created from an article without the latter having an infobox of dubious utility dominating the top of the article almost-instinct 10:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Some misunderstandings. Who said "should"? Who said "who doesn't speak English"? You said "third-rate", the author thought differently (on the talk page, this version is only for history, because the comments refer to it). I think a whatever rate stub with an interwiki-link to this article is better than no info on the person in that other language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- We should have a third-rate infobox so that someone who doesn't speak english can create a fourth-rate stub on another wikipedia? What a service almost-instinct 15:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The arguments about infoboxes, on both sides, are well rehearsed, but to address your specific points: the death date is a useful indicator, for recent composers, of whether the subject is alive or not. A "years active " parameter is available, for when birth/ death dates are not known, or as an additional indicator if useful. The parameters you feel are subejctive are also optional; that provides the fleixibility you say you don't have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my view Template:Infobox person in its current state has solved a lot of the flexibility problems, especially with the (recently?) added ability to contain specialised modules adapted to particular types of biographies. And, again, unneeded/inappropriate parameters can simply not be used. It's vastly superior to Template:Infobox musical artist, which is (in my view) is very unsuitable for classical music-related biographies. I have no problem with using Infobox person in opera related articles, as long as it is limited to strictly objective, verifiably accurate, key attributes. Side note to Gerda, you might want to read my comment at the Stoepel talk page [1] re the "Known for" parameter which you have kept in the box. I don't think its either useful or accurate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
This discussion, complete with its sample infobox was about whether Robert Stoepel should have a biographical infobox, and opinions in general about biographical infoboxes for opera-related biographies is archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 112#Stoepel. The article in question now has an infobox following a discussion on the talk page. If anyone wants to discuss the general issue of biographical infoboxes (yet again), please start a new section. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Royal Opera House
Hello all,
Tim riley and I visited the Royal Opera House in London on Wednesday to talk to them about Wikipedia and run a short "how to edit" session. One of their staff (OperaBalletRose) has been expanding the articles on various operas and ballets over the past few months (mostly with synopses), and they're interested in getting more of their staff up to speed to help with this.
Alongside this, they're interested in hosting some kind of editathon event; we haven't got a firm date yet, but it'll probably be in June, and probably on a Saturday. If you might be interested in coming along to the ROH for a look behind the scenes and a chance to work with some of their collections, do get in touch - I'll let you know a firm date as soon as we've sorted it out! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that's fabulous. When the event is set, create a page for the editathon. I (and I'm sure others) would be happy to do remote editing. -- kosboot (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Brilliant! This is really good news! Voceditenore (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well done. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- If I am in London for the editathon I would love to participate.--Smerus (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just make sure you don't practise on Edita Gruberova. :) -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Pre-revolutionary Russian orthography
I'm seeing a few examples of editors inserting the old Russian orthography in the ledes of operas, such as here. I've reverted those I've found.
Sure, that's the way those people wrote back then, but those old letters are now of interest only to specialist linguo-historians. It's enough that we show any non-Latin script at all in our articles in this most English of Wikipediae. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 10:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- They're not even used in the Russian Wikipedia [2], [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could honestly see a case for it, maybe, if both old and modern is used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- What would the case for it be? [not a rhetorical question] Old style hasn't been used in Russia for a century almost-instinct 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Адам, это не надо!!--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Учитесь властвовать собой почти-инстинкт 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- У меня болит голова! Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does this mean we'll have to move Handel's Messiah to Meffiah? --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, because f and long-s aren't the same letter; and that case really is more of a font issue (Better examples: The Recruiting Serjeant, Love and Freindship, or, if you want examples of no-longer-used letters, Þjálfi and Röskva, Æthelbald of Mercia.) It can also be useful to have the old-style Cyrillic because scores have a tendency to stick around for quite some time, and because it will help explain any inconsistencies between the Cyrillic given and, say, a contemporary poster using the reformed-away letters. But I think the examples I've given show we're at least tolerant of more old-fashioned spellings in English, so I don't see why expanding it to Russian would be such a stretch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does this mean we'll have to move Handel's Messiah to Meffiah? --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- У меня болит голова! Voceditenore (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Учитесь властвовать собой почти-инстинкт 17:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Адам, это не надо!!--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- What would the case for it be? [not a rhetorical question] Old style hasn't been used in Russia for a century almost-instinct 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could honestly see a case for it, maybe, if both old and modern is used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there's a case for showing them at all, how much more of a case is there for also showing the modern orthography, which is much more likely to be encountered in practice. I think, on reflection, that my objection is to showing only the old style alphabet, as per my example above. Sure, it's possible to come across these letterings in old scores and even in my trusty 1954 Grove's Dictionary, where, for example, we have "Golden Cockerel, The ('Золотой Пѣтушокъ') ...". The yat (ѣ) is not even represented in our editing drop down boxes, so that gives you an idea of how often users ever need these old letters. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Re; The Golden Cockerel, I might be wrong but I seem to remember Rimsky was deliberately going for an archaic spelling there. --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, obviously the modern spelling should also be provided. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like excessive pedantry to me. --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Per Adam Cuerden, I prefer the spelling actually used in the available scores. If modern spelling is more common on recordings or secondary literature, there's a case for the cumbersome Translated title, ('original title, transliterated title, suitably piped|'modern spelling) format, but couldn't some of this go into a footnote instead? Sparafucil (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Trouble is, no modern scores, including the most authoritative urtexts, will ever use the old orthography, just as no Russian books or journals or websites ever use the old orthography. It is completely obsolete for all but the most abstrusely technical and arcane purposes. All books written before the spelling reforms are republished using the new orthography. Our articles on Russian operas are not meant to be lessons in the history of the Russian alphabet. They are articles about the operas and their histories. We never use antiquated English spellings like "shew" for "show", "musick" for "music", "antient" for "ancient", "moone" for "moon" etc, so why would we
shewshow antiquated and obsolete Russian orthography? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)- Exactly which modern scores of Aleko, Boris or Igor do you suggest I trade my not-very-old reprints for, Jack? Sparafucil (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Trouble is, no modern scores, including the most authoritative urtexts, will ever use the old orthography, just as no Russian books or journals or websites ever use the old orthography. It is completely obsolete for all but the most abstrusely technical and arcane purposes. All books written before the spelling reforms are republished using the new orthography. Our articles on Russian operas are not meant to be lessons in the history of the Russian alphabet. They are articles about the operas and their histories. We never use antiquated English spellings like "shew" for "show", "musick" for "music", "antient" for "ancient", "moone" for "moon" etc, so why would we
- Per Adam Cuerden, I prefer the spelling actually used in the available scores. If modern spelling is more common on recordings or secondary literature, there's a case for the cumbersome Translated title, ('original title, transliterated title, suitably piped|'modern spelling) format, but couldn't some of this go into a footnote instead? Sparafucil (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like excessive pedantry to me. --Folantin (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, obviously the modern spelling should also be provided. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Re; The Golden Cockerel, I might be wrong but I seem to remember Rimsky was deliberately going for an archaic spelling there. --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- If there's a case for showing them at all, how much more of a case is there for also showing the modern orthography, which is much more likely to be encountered in practice. I think, on reflection, that my objection is to showing only the old style alphabet, as per my example above. Sure, it's possible to come across these letterings in old scores and even in my trusty 1954 Grove's Dictionary, where, for example, we have "Golden Cockerel, The ('Золотой Пѣтушокъ') ...". The yat (ѣ) is not even represented in our editing drop down boxes, so that gives you an idea of how often users ever need these old letters. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I feel persuaded by Sparafucil and Adam Cuerden that having the original would not merely be an indugent archaism. What would be the best format be? "EngName (ModernRussian, originally OldRussian)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almost-instinct (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 March 2013
Women's History Month is in March
Hi everyone at WikiProject Opera!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:
- Women's roles as performers, directors, writers and instructors in the opera.
- The importance of women's roles in opera
- Music, works and styles of opera that have specifically impacted women and women's history
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia and stop by my talk page with any questions! SarahStierch (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- How about Ethel Smyth as composer of the month? We're missing four of her operas. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. I see you've already put her in the March CoM, I've copyedited it a bit. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- For the Opera(s) of the Month we could work on improving stub or near stub operas based on female historical characters, e.g. Adelaide di Borgogna (1817) based on Adelaide of Italy and Émilie (2010) based on Émilie du Châtelet. We should aim for a variety of periods and styles, if possible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- List of historical opera characters may provide some other possibilities. I've started looking through the List of operas by Gaetano Donizetti, but so far I've only clocked up Il castello di Kenilworth, which is a stub featuring QE1. --GuillaumeTell 00:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to GuillaumeTell's suggestion, I nipped over to List of historical opera characters and checked the articles. Below are some more suggestions. We don't have to use them all, maybe a selction of 5 or 6?. The remainder will be good for next year. Some are extraordinarily stubby and may be hard to source, e.g. Olga. Some are slightly more developed but lack significant bits of available material such as detailed synopsis, performance history, critical reception, premiere casts etc. and/or are poorly referenced. A couple of them are by notable composers, but are completely missing. The historical/legendary women don't have to have been "nice people", in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
List of OoM suggestions
- Jorge Antunes: Olga on Olga Benário Prestes
- Handel: Berenice on Berenice III of Egypt
- Jack Beeson: Lizzie Borden on Lizzie Borden
- Alberto Ginastera: Beatrix Cenci on Beatrice Cenci
- Domenico Cimarosa: La Cleopatra on Cleopatra
- Robert Planquette: Nell Gwynne on Nell Gwynne
- Donizetti: Fausta on Fausta
- Antonín Dvořák: Vanda on Princess Wanda
- Emmerich Kálmán: Kaiserin Josephine on Joséphine de Beauharnais
- Ottorino Respighi: Lucrezia on Lucretia
- Umberto Giordano: Madame Sans-Gêne on Catherine Hubscher note also Sardou's play on which it is based is a red link Madame Sans-Gêne (play)
- Antônio Carlos Gomes: Maria Tudor on Mary Tudor, Queen of France
- Isidore de Lara: Messaline on Valeria Messalina
- Reinhard Keiser: Octavia on Claudia Octavia
- Saverio Mercadante: Nitocri on Nitocris
Links to libretti
Dear opera lovers, could you please add two new links to line-by-line opera librettos?
- French-English line-by-line libretto to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom%C3%A9o_et_Juliette
- French-English line-by-line libretto to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell_%28opera%29
These line-by-line libretti are exclusive. Благодарю! --Murashev (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I also updated the ext links on Roméo et Juliette (fixed a broken one to the Juilliard Manuscript Library and removed one to the now defunct Baltimore Opera website). There's also a link to the somewhat improbably named Jana Lady Lou singing "Ah! Je veux vivre!". Could someone listen to this and tell us if it's worth keeping? Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Voceditenore! I just listened to Jana Lady Lou sings. There is also a link from Turandot wiki page to her singing. As about me, she sings well but not great. And her french is far from being perfect. Her english `R' instead of guttural R... brrr! Her aria from Turandot - nothing special, as well as aria from La boheme. I listen to opera a lot, and there are many better singers. I still wonder what others think about Jana Lady Lou singing. --Murashev (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I listened to it finally. She's classically trained but basically sings arias in cabarets and clubs. The recording is very poor quality and has only a piano accompaniment. I found this replacement and added it to the article. This is a YouTube video but is OK to link to as it's the official channel of ABC Classics. YouTube clips not from official channels are not OK as they are virtually all copyright violations and we can't link to them. Voceditenore (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Voceditenore! I just listened to Jana Lady Lou sings. There is also a link from Turandot wiki page to her singing. As about me, she sings well but not great. And her french is far from being perfect. Her english `R' instead of guttural R... brrr! Her aria from Turandot - nothing special, as well as aria from La boheme. I listen to opera a lot, and there are many better singers. I still wonder what others think about Jana Lady Lou singing. --Murashev (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've also replaced the link in Turandot as well. By the way several opera companies have official YouTube channels now, and these can be very useful for finding high quality, copyright compliant video clips. I'll list some of them here, and will eventually add a section to our Online research guide. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Official opera company YouTube channels
Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata and infoboxes
I want to tread carefully, being that many are passionate about infoboxes. :) This past weekend, the NYC WP group had its Wikipedia Day meeting. I wasn't there, but I've been apprised of some of the sessions. One of the speakers came from France to talk about the Wikidata project. If any of you are following composer pages, you must be seeing that the manual interwiki links are being replaced by Wikidata. After this they are going to want to work on geographical names. The idea being that that the significant information will be held in wikidata which will then populate articles in all the language wikis. How are they going to do this? By using the infobox! The infobox is the key to establishing articles in language wikis where currently no article exists (i.e. the infobox should supply enough information to automatically create an article lede. This suggests a harmonization of articles between all the various Wikipedias and indeed, it was relayed to me that the WMF considers internationalization of Wikipedia a very high priority, as it promotes open access. Not meaning to rub lemon juice in open wounds, but if I may gently suggest, those of you resistant to infoboxes might want to think through the implications. -- kosboot (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I gently suggest that those of us who do not have the mighty privilege of having WMF's policy directly relayed to us don't give a flying frankfurter about such ominous mutterings. When we hear from WMF (if ever) then we can decide what to do in the wake of the information forthcoming.--Smerus (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I gently repeat that infoboxes might be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- They might or might not be a good idea. I think there are few editors here who don't see the value of them in certain types of articles, or even the relative harmlessness of a simple infobox person (with the vast majority of parameters removed) in opera-related biographies. If the word comes from "on high" that infoboxes are the only way to code Wikidata and that they will become obligatory in all articles, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. So far, no one has given a clear answer to the simple question, "Are visible infoboxes the only way to encode Wikidata?", let alone "Will they become obligatory?" Some have been deliberately evasive on the subject (no one in this thread) because they are very pro-infoboxes for other reasons, which have nothing to do with Wikidata, and have latched on to this latest initiative as another weapon in their armory.
- I gently repeat that infoboxes might be a good idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I should also point out that the Wikimedia developers and planners also tend to make "improvements" and initiatives, some of which are very costly, without even thinking through the editorial implications of what they are doing. The simple reason is that they are not editors, and often haven't a clue what the implications are. (Take a look at the RfC on Wikimedia's article feedback tool.) As for the Wikidata initiative, the idea of automatically generating articles in one Wikipedia solely from the infoboxes in other Wikipedias, is utterly bizarre. You end up with a completely unreferenced article derived from information in another Wikipedia article which in itself may be unreferenced or patently false. We've all seen the kind of lax referencing in the non-English Wikipedia articles. This may be relatively harmless for geographical locations, but it has dire implications for biographies or articles on artistic works and the hapless editors who have to maintain them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Equally alarming is the notion that "this suggests a harmonization of articles between all the various Wikipedias". We now have the beginning of the roll-out of transferring the interwiki links on the English Wikipedia to Wikidata. These are now edited from the sidebar rather than in the article. So far, this has not extended to the non-English Wikipedias, although presumably that is the goal. So, what we will eventually get is an editor on the Catalan Wikipedia editing the Wikidata there, and it will instantly appear in all the Wikipedias. Of course they might get the interwiki link wrong or deliberately link to a spurious article, but never mind, at least all the Wikipedias will be "harmonized" in their wrongness. Now let's move forward a few years. Infoboxes are obligatory in all articles on all Wikipedias and are now "harmonized" in the same way. Any editor on a Wikipedia of any language can edit or even vandalise the Wikidata and all the infoboxes in all the Wikipedias will be instantly "harmonized" to accommodate that edit? Fabulous. We can have international edit wars. Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikidata as a repository for Interwiki links: I, too, am concerned about the effect of unobserved changes to a centrally kept repository of interwiki links. It remains to be seen whether the watchlist option "Show Wikidata" is a sufficient tool to monitor them. At the moment it's difficult to say because of the watchlist's myriad entries by User:Addbot and siblings, but I can already see that monitoring will be much more cumbersome because WP:POPUPS don't work.
- Wikidata as a central repository of further information: as VdT already pointed out, the same concerns apply to biographical and other data. However, the central storage by itself doesn't further any argument for (or against) infoboxes. It is proposed that the main source for biographical data is the Italian Wikipedia's use of their it:Template:Bio which can hold a wide range of biographical details. The opening sentence of most biographies on the Italian Wikipedia is constructed from that template. It's their equivalent of every other (except the Sardinian) Wikipedia's Template:Persondata, but it is much, much more. So I don't understand how the creation of a central repository should have any bearing on the use of infoboxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Equally alarming is the notion that "this suggests a harmonization of articles between all the various Wikipedias". We now have the beginning of the roll-out of transferring the interwiki links on the English Wikipedia to Wikidata. These are now edited from the sidebar rather than in the article. So far, this has not extended to the non-English Wikipedias, although presumably that is the goal. So, what we will eventually get is an editor on the Catalan Wikipedia editing the Wikidata there, and it will instantly appear in all the Wikipedias. Of course they might get the interwiki link wrong or deliberately link to a spurious article, but never mind, at least all the Wikipedias will be "harmonized" in their wrongness. Now let's move forward a few years. Infoboxes are obligatory in all articles on all Wikipedias and are now "harmonized" in the same way. Any editor on a Wikipedia of any language can edit or even vandalise the Wikidata and all the infoboxes in all the Wikipedias will be instantly "harmonized" to accommodate that edit? Fabulous. We can have international edit wars. Voceditenore (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I should also point out that the Wikimedia developers and planners also tend to make "improvements" and initiatives, some of which are very costly, without even thinking through the editorial implications of what they are doing. The simple reason is that they are not editors, and often haven't a clue what the implications are. (Take a look at the RfC on Wikimedia's article feedback tool.) As for the Wikidata initiative, the idea of automatically generating articles in one Wikipedia solely from the infoboxes in other Wikipedias, is utterly bizarre. You end up with a completely unreferenced article derived from information in another Wikipedia article which in itself may be unreferenced or patently false. We've all seen the kind of lax referencing in the non-English Wikipedia articles. This may be relatively harmless for geographical locations, but it has dire implications for biographies or articles on artistic works and the hapless editors who have to maintain them. Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi all. I'm not working very closely with the Wikidata project, but hopefully I can give a quick summary of what's planned!
- Firstly, Wikidata isn't really a "Wikimedia developer" thing; Wikimedia Deutschland have funded a small group of software developers for two years to get it up and running, but the project is run by its own community, the same way as any of our other sister projects - it's like Commons in that regard.
- Wikidata will contain a structured set of information on each "entity" (concept, person, thing, etc) - see, for example, d:Q1339. That information will contain names ("en:Johann Sebastian Bach", "ru:Бах, Иоганн Себастьян"), relationships ("born in:Eisenach", father:"Johann Ambrosius Bach") and data (date of birth:"21 March 1685"). These will all be fully internationalised, meaning that even if you don't read the language of the Wikipedia articles, you can still see the core data.
- The first of these (names) is now mostly complete, and also provides a central database for the interlanguage links in articles - you'll have seen it on your watchlists. (It went live on Hungarian, then Hebrew, then English - testing it worked okay each time - and will roll out to all projects early next month). The second of these (relationships) went live a couple of weeks ago, and is being populated; here's an example of a visualisation of the family relationships around Bach. The third ("text" values in data) is not yet available, but should be soon. One interesting feature is that relationships and data can both be sourced - so Wikidata can itself contain citations for the data it includes - and will be able to be marked for reliability/updatedness/etc.
- Where Wikipedia infoboxes exist, they will be probably used to automatically populate Wikidata fields; however, this doesn't mean we need to add them to any given Wikipedia in order for Wikidata to work! The data can still be added by hand; this is how it's being done at the moment.
- In the long run, it's possible that where infoboxes exist, they will be dynamically populated from a central database. This has been talked about hypothetically, but there's not many clear plans for it yet; the main desire is to have core statistical data, like population figures, be consistent. This does not mean that a) all infoboxes will be completely synchronised with Wikidata; or b) that all articles will have to get infoboxes. The Wikidata community has no power over the other projects and what happens to English Wikipedia will, as always, be decided by a local consensus here.
- Automatic generation of articles has been talked about, but again, it's not likely to happen without a community consensus, and on enwiki I'd rate that as very unlikely to be generally accepted. Most projects are strongly against mass generation of articles! However, it may be that smaller projects get value from pulling in automatically generated infoboxes to go alongside existing two-sentence stubs; this will be up to them, I guess, but I can easily imagine it being seen as useful.
- The summary of the above - the existence of Wikidata will not mandate the creation of infoboxes in articles, although it will provide the means for recording structured data without visible infoboxes. The community here on enwiki could of course decide to require infoboxes on every article... but it's not done so until now, and I doubt Wikidata will change that existing consensus.
- Hope that helps explain what's going on! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for this very helpful explanation which makes it clear that, whatever is happening at Wikidata, it should not be used by third parties to intimidate or annoy those editors who happen not to like to use infoboxes in certain circumstances or topics.--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your excellent summary. -- kosboot (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've done a bit of digging over lunch, and it seems that I'd got the wrong end of at least one stick - plans for integrating Wikidata into existing infoboxes are well underway; see, for example, this summary here. We may see this appearing quite soon.
- However, it seems clear that the system they're using will just use a special template to fill in certain values within existing infoboxes (etc), rather than creating a new infobox on top of everything else. If there isn't one there before, it's not likely to affect the article. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andrew. All this is very helpful. I see that the infobox integration for now seems to be concentrating primarily on geographical/population data, although that's dubious enough. It also seems that the operation and maintenance of the WikiData project are being handed over in March to the Wikimedia Foundation, who are all very chuffed about it [4]. In a way, this is better as it's a lot easier to yell at the WMF when they start monkeying around with their various "initiatives". My main concerns, the lack of adequate sourcing for this data and who will bear the burden of monitoring it, still remain. I honestly don't think that either the WMF or the WikiData project have thought through the human/editorial side at all, and they will probably live to regret it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- As I've already commented to Andrew, the fable of the bed/infobox of Procrustes comes to mind.--Smerus (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe "operation and maintenance" there means day-to-day hosting - WMF will run the servers rather than WMDE - but doesn't imply close tinkering with the direction of the project any more than it does here. Infobox integration is likely to focus primarily on statistical information, as the editors of the WP articles will have to choose to include these "variables" - it won't be an automatic process - and so it'll only get done where it provides some benefit over just writing it out!
- The data should be sourceable and maintainable in the same way as it is here, and potentially the real value here will be getting some of enwiki's high sourcing standards out to other projects - we'll be exporting the citations along with the data. I understand your concerns about vandalism, and I've had them myself, but I feel pretty positive we'll be able to handle it - the problem's no more insoluble than that of Wikipedia's own maintainability. ;-)
- Finally, it might actually help with the infobox issue, counterintuitive as that sounds. Once we have wikidata fully up and running, we'll have somewhere to store structured data about composers (etc) that isn't in an infobox in the article itself - the people who find value from this data can go ahead and collate it without having to expose it to the reader. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Andrew. All this is very helpful. I see that the infobox integration for now seems to be concentrating primarily on geographical/population data, although that's dubious enough. It also seems that the operation and maintenance of the WikiData project are being handed over in March to the Wikimedia Foundation, who are all very chuffed about it [4]. In a way, this is better as it's a lot easier to yell at the WMF when they start monkeying around with their various "initiatives". My main concerns, the lack of adequate sourcing for this data and who will bear the burden of monitoring it, still remain. I honestly don't think that either the WMF or the WikiData project have thought through the human/editorial side at all, and they will probably live to regret it. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your excellent summary. -- kosboot (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for this very helpful explanation which makes it clear that, whatever is happening at Wikidata, it should not be used by third parties to intimidate or annoy those editors who happen not to like to use infoboxes in certain circumstances or topics.--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Articles that don't have infoboxes or persondata are being complied. With the intend of adding Wikidata to them in the future in some manner - not by way of forcing infoboxes but through a revised persondata template or other means. The community understand that a small portion of articles are simply not ready for the upcoming upgrade and thus will happen in stages - with no article being forced to add visual info if not wanted.Moxy (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It remains to be seen if this could be accurately described as an "upgrade". Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Correct - perhaps not the right wording - but it is happening non the less. I am sure your all aware that when this change happens there will be editors going around and adding infoboxes to article just because they think Wikidata is missing - got to be prepared for a large round of edit wars over boxes. The project really should write an essay about how you guys feel about infoboxes so you can point to it in the future - as of now pointing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates does nothing but illustrate there is no consensus even within the group about the boxes. Moxy (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Infoboxes. This is not WikiProject Composers, and that section of our guide does not simply point to that project's discussions. It explains why we do not recommend them. You may disagree with that reasoning, but that's another issue. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- That link is even worst - its contradictory in nature and simply links back to all the discisions that are pages and pages long. Really should take the time to write a proper essay on the matter if you expect editors to respect the project(s) POV. You seem more concerned about peoples POV on the boxes then conveying the situation to our editors - in the future assume peoples recommendations are because they wish to help this project deal with all the backlash you guys get and not because they like or dislike boxes.Moxy (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Moxy, but your reply is very confusing. We have a paragraph there explaining why this project does not recommend their use. We also quote the relevant material from the Wikipedia Manual of Style and link to it. The various links to past discussions are simply there for people who are curious about them. They are not the explanation for our recommendation, they are simply a coda. If members think we need a 1000 word essay, and want to write one instead of writing articles, fine, but in my view, what is there is adequate. And what on earth does all this have do with anyone not assuming good faith on your part? Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have been here long enough to know full well that that page (and the others like it) has cause nothing but problems for the project(s) of this nature. Pointing to an advice page that say "I dont like it" has done nothing but cause edit wars and the isolation of the project. At the help desk(s) people tell new editors to simply avoid the projects advice and follow our policy (some even say avoid the project(s) all together). Would be better if the project(s) had a nice non-contradictory essay that people would be willing to link to over just saying FUCK the project(s) advice. Having the project the isolated child of the site is not helpful to this project let alone to Wikipedia itself overall. Take the time to address the concerns raised by the community and confront them head on (with a big set of balls) and write out the main concerns of the project. You seem to imply your group has better things to do then write an essay - I would argue that the project could save time with an essay - instead of having to fight all the time on page after page let alone on the project pages. Should try to find a solution - as the norm clearly has not worked out for the projects thus far.Moxy (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page, Moxy. It doesn't say simply "We don't like it". It says we don't recommend it, and it outlines the reasons why. What is there in that paragraph that you find "contradictory"? If people want to say "F**k the Project", they will regardless how long the essay is, or where it is. And as for "fighting all the time on page after page", where is your evidence that in the last year or so, the Opera Project has been "fighting all the time on page after page". Incidentally, "fighting" is in the eye of the beholder. As you well know, the MOS explicitly states
- "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. 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."
- Since when does discussion among the editors at each individual article equate to fighting? Voceditenore (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop referring to "our [Wikipedia's] policy". There is no Wikipedia policy that our advice page contradicts. Voceditenore (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok will stop saying contradicts policy despite the fact in my opinion they do. Lets move on from that and see if I can explain better the problem. I will try to be more clear as to why there should be an essay as my point is being missed. Pointing to the project(s) advice page(s) regardless of what they say is the problem. The project(s) need/should write an essay they can link to during talks that is not affiliated with the project(s) advice pages because of the inherent hostility there is to the projects in question. Write an essay that is more then a few sentences long that discuss the problems in detail, while linking to other essays (like Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox) that support the views expressed here in other forms. As for evidence that there is a problem just look at the archives here and other related projects - having this ongoing long standing debate that is clearly not being solved by the advice pages you have has lead to a reputation of ownership for the projects. You got to be tired of this problem that has lasted for years... Try - just try to see if there is a better approach like an essay. Moxy (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since you continue to say that in your opinion our advice page contradicts policy, would you please name the policy which our advice page contradicts? And again, please provide evidence that over the last year this project has been "fighting all the time on page after page". The last knockdown, drag'em out fight over an infobox had nothing to whatsoever to do with opera. It was about an historic building. As for essays, they are exactly that. When they're cited, people who don't agree with them repeatedly dismiss them as "just an essay" and plow right ahead, as is their right. It's fine by me if any OP member thinks it would be a constructive use of their time to write hundreds of words which will be then be dismissed as "just an essay" by people who claim that it's against "policy" and therefore should be ignored. It's not a constructive use of my time. Voceditenore (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- At this point I see your not even willing to admit there is a problem (still fishing). Your not understanding that this project is all tied up with the 2 others in there reputations because of association. As for essays - disappointing to hear your opinion on them considering how long you been here Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing both essays that I would love to anyone dismiss. No point in this conversation continuing if one side thinks all is perfect with the current situation. Moxy (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I simply gave my view that writing essays on infoboxes is not a particularly constructive use of my time. No one here has said "all is perfect", so please stop putting your spurious constructions on what others have said. Your very choice of words, i.e. one "side" against another, is both adversarial profoundly unconstructive. And as for your claim that no one would dismiss essays, well, you yourself have dismissed them: "And you do understand that "BRD" is only a essay" and "WP:CNR is only an essay". Voceditenore (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- At any point please feel free to offer any suggestion of how to fixing the long standing problem - over how someone should talk to you. Moxy (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- As someone who consistently finds VdT to be a shining example of calmness, respectfulness, intelligence and clear-sightedness, I find the direction this conversation has taken to be thoroughly bemusing, and am wondering exactly which variable it is that is responsible almost-instinct 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you notice that that the conversaton was continued below? That Philip Glass has an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Gerda, I read everything on this page, and everything that appears on my watchlist almost-instinct 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think maybe Gerda was responding to Moxy. I saw the stunning piece of infoboxery at Philip Glass when I was writing In the Penal Colony. I was shocked, shocked, I tell you. So much so, that I had to lie down for half an hour to recover.
Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think maybe Gerda was responding to Moxy. I saw the stunning piece of infoboxery at Philip Glass when I was writing In the Penal Colony. I was shocked, shocked, I tell you. So much so, that I had to lie down for half an hour to recover.
- Yes Gerda, I read everything on this page, and everything that appears on my watchlist almost-instinct 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you notice that that the conversaton was continued below? That Philip Glass has an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- As someone who consistently finds VdT to be a shining example of calmness, respectfulness, intelligence and clear-sightedness, I find the direction this conversation has taken to be thoroughly bemusing, and am wondering exactly which variable it is that is responsible almost-instinct 22:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- At any point please feel free to offer any suggestion of how to fixing the long standing problem - over how someone should talk to you. Moxy (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I simply gave my view that writing essays on infoboxes is not a particularly constructive use of my time. No one here has said "all is perfect", so please stop putting your spurious constructions on what others have said. Your very choice of words, i.e. one "side" against another, is both adversarial profoundly unconstructive. And as for your claim that no one would dismiss essays, well, you yourself have dismissed them: "And you do understand that "BRD" is only a essay" and "WP:CNR is only an essay". Voceditenore (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- At this point I see your not even willing to admit there is a problem (still fishing). Your not understanding that this project is all tied up with the 2 others in there reputations because of association. As for essays - disappointing to hear your opinion on them considering how long you been here Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing both essays that I would love to anyone dismiss. No point in this conversation continuing if one side thinks all is perfect with the current situation. Moxy (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Since you continue to say that in your opinion our advice page contradicts policy, would you please name the policy which our advice page contradicts? And again, please provide evidence that over the last year this project has been "fighting all the time on page after page". The last knockdown, drag'em out fight over an infobox had nothing to whatsoever to do with opera. It was about an historic building. As for essays, they are exactly that. When they're cited, people who don't agree with them repeatedly dismiss them as "just an essay" and plow right ahead, as is their right. It's fine by me if any OP member thinks it would be a constructive use of their time to write hundreds of words which will be then be dismissed as "just an essay" by people who claim that it's against "policy" and therefore should be ignored. It's not a constructive use of my time. Voceditenore (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok will stop saying contradicts policy despite the fact in my opinion they do. Lets move on from that and see if I can explain better the problem. I will try to be more clear as to why there should be an essay as my point is being missed. Pointing to the project(s) advice page(s) regardless of what they say is the problem. The project(s) need/should write an essay they can link to during talks that is not affiliated with the project(s) advice pages because of the inherent hostility there is to the projects in question. Write an essay that is more then a few sentences long that discuss the problems in detail, while linking to other essays (like Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox) that support the views expressed here in other forms. As for evidence that there is a problem just look at the archives here and other related projects - having this ongoing long standing debate that is clearly not being solved by the advice pages you have has lead to a reputation of ownership for the projects. You got to be tired of this problem that has lasted for years... Try - just try to see if there is a better approach like an essay. Moxy (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Read the page, Moxy. It doesn't say simply "We don't like it". It says we don't recommend it, and it outlines the reasons why. What is there in that paragraph that you find "contradictory"? If people want to say "F**k the Project", they will regardless how long the essay is, or where it is. And as for "fighting all the time on page after page", where is your evidence that in the last year or so, the Opera Project has been "fighting all the time on page after page". Incidentally, "fighting" is in the eye of the beholder. As you well know, the MOS explicitly states
- You have been here long enough to know full well that that page (and the others like it) has cause nothing but problems for the project(s) of this nature. Pointing to an advice page that say "I dont like it" has done nothing but cause edit wars and the isolation of the project. At the help desk(s) people tell new editors to simply avoid the projects advice and follow our policy (some even say avoid the project(s) all together). Would be better if the project(s) had a nice non-contradictory essay that people would be willing to link to over just saying FUCK the project(s) advice. Having the project the isolated child of the site is not helpful to this project let alone to Wikipedia itself overall. Take the time to address the concerns raised by the community and confront them head on (with a big set of balls) and write out the main concerns of the project. You seem to imply your group has better things to do then write an essay - I would argue that the project could save time with an essay - instead of having to fight all the time on page after page let alone on the project pages. Should try to find a solution - as the norm clearly has not worked out for the projects thus far.Moxy (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Moxy, but your reply is very confusing. We have a paragraph there explaining why this project does not recommend their use. We also quote the relevant material from the Wikipedia Manual of Style and link to it. The various links to past discussions are simply there for people who are curious about them. They are not the explanation for our recommendation, they are simply a coda. If members think we need a 1000 word essay, and want to write one instead of writing articles, fine, but in my view, what is there is adequate. And what on earth does all this have do with anyone not assuming good faith on your part? Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- That link is even worst - its contradictory in nature and simply links back to all the discisions that are pages and pages long. Really should take the time to write a proper essay on the matter if you expect editors to respect the project(s) POV. You seem more concerned about peoples POV on the boxes then conveying the situation to our editors - in the future assume peoples recommendations are because they wish to help this project deal with all the backlash you guys get and not because they like or dislike boxes.Moxy (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Infoboxes. This is not WikiProject Composers, and that section of our guide does not simply point to that project's discussions. It explains why we do not recommend them. You may disagree with that reasoning, but that's another issue. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Correct - perhaps not the right wording - but it is happening non the less. I am sure your all aware that when this change happens there will be editors going around and adding infoboxes to article just because they think Wikidata is missing - got to be prepared for a large round of edit wars over boxes. The project really should write an essay about how you guys feel about infoboxes so you can point to it in the future - as of now pointing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infobox debates does nothing but illustrate there is no consensus even within the group about the boxes. Moxy (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- It remains to be seen if this could be accurately described as an "upgrade". Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the Techno-Titanic is ploughing full steam ahead towards the iceberg of reality. I might not stick around to enjoy the crash. --Folantin (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Chicken! :) Voceditenore (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Q & A at the Village Pump
- Lydia Pintscher from Wikimedia Germany, who is closely involved in the Wikidata project is currently answering editors' questions on the deployment of Phase II at the Village Pump here. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Update. The Village Pump Q&A is now archived here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
108.227.19.84 's addition to the Alceste (Gluck) article
While I was tempted to remove all of this (and it certainly doesn't seem to fit under "Performance history"), I'm not qualified to figure out what he/she means in regard to this opera and from where the refs come. Maybe someone can improve it? Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- In Don Giovanni, written a whole twenty-five years after Alceste and the year Gluck died, in 1787, Mozart uses the exact same chord progression for the Commendatore speaking to Don Giovanni In the garden scene,that Gluck uses for the line of the High Priest when saying Alceste will die if no one takes her place. In Hector Italic textBerlioz's A Traver Chant, in volume two called Gluck and his Operas, Berlioz notes how this section of Don Giovanni is "heavily in-inspired or rather plagiarized". He further notes the plagiarism of a full aria in Francois-Duncan Philidor's era Le Sorcier. Berlioz notes how Philidor got possession of the score in 1764. Philidor thereby changed the date from 1762 to1764 in the published score of Alceste, to make it look like Gluck plagiarized Philidor's Le Sorcier of 1763. Berlioz further discusses the authenticity of some of the arias. For example, when Gluck went to Vienna, an aria was added to act 3. Usually these were already written arias from operas. Berlioz comes to the conclusion that Gluck was under so much pressure that he let it happen. Also, Berlioz makes note to corrections added by Gluck during rehearsals, and misunderstandings in the score, due to what Berlioz calls Gluck's "happy-go-lucky" style of writing.
- The book the IP is talking about, Gluck & his operas, with an account of their relation to musical art, is on line in its entirety here. I checked the text and the Philidor plagiarism (and his changing the publication date of Gluck's score) refers to his Orfeo, not Alceste (see pp. 30-33), for starters. So, that probably needs to go. But on page 85, Berlioz does claim that Mozart "copied" the bit in Don Giovanni from Alceste. The bit about the "Happy-g-lucky" style and the Act 3 stuff, appears to be true, or at least true to what Berlioz said. (See pp. 149-151). Perhaps someone can fix it? I'm sort of busy elsewhere on Wikipedia at the moment. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Edited Alceste and Orfeo accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Edited Alceste and Orfeo accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- The book the IP is talking about, Gluck & his operas, with an account of their relation to musical art, is on line in its entirety here. I checked the text and the Philidor plagiarism (and his changing the publication date of Gluck's score) refers to his Orfeo, not Alceste (see pp. 30-33), for starters. So, that probably needs to go. But on page 85, Berlioz does claim that Mozart "copied" the bit in Don Giovanni from Alceste. The bit about the "Happy-g-lucky" style and the Act 3 stuff, appears to be true, or at least true to what Berlioz said. (See pp. 149-151). Perhaps someone can fix it? I'm sort of busy elsewhere on Wikipedia at the moment. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I am here to request that some experts here consider making an article titled either Barcarolle (Offenbach) or Belle nuit, ô nuit d'amour (currently a redirect) for inclusion in {{The Tales of Hoffmann}} and {{Jacques Offenbach}}. According to the Barcarolle article it is among the most famous Barcarolles. WP has an article for Barcarolle (Chopin) but not this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. (Still editing though, I'm going to expand its context in the opera and copy over the stuff about arrangements of it.) Can we get a better sound file? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Couple more questions for people who could help!
- Where can I find sources with more musical analysis? Or should I just write about the piece from the score? (like, I want to talk about the cello figure in the intro...would that be OR)
- Is it true that it isn't necessarily meant to be sung in character, and if so, can this be sourced?
- –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this source, in Carvalho's version, it is sung by two minstrels outside Antonia's window (the whole Giuietta act was cut). Ditto this one. This source has some musical analysis re the flute and how the music heightens the anticipation of the listener. This one (Siren Songs: Representations of Gender and Sexuality in Opera) also has an interesting analysis. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've used two of those already (the one with the musical analysis doesn't discuss the cello - and it says that the melody comes in in the strings so it's apparently not talking about the original vocal version) and mention the piece's use in the second act, though I could add more detail about that, I suppose. Siren Songs may be useful, thanks (and also refers me to Dahlhaus, which is definitely useful). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- According to this source, in Carvalho's version, it is sung by two minstrels outside Antonia's window (the whole Giuietta act was cut). Ditto this one. This source has some musical analysis re the flute and how the music heightens the anticipation of the listener. This one (Siren Songs: Representations of Gender and Sexuality in Opera) also has an interesting analysis. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
In the Penal Colony
Could someone translate the French In the Penal Colony, at least a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda, do you mean create an article here from the French Wikipedia? Or is there just something specific you want to know about the opera that's in the French WP article? Voceditenore (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I note that many of the sources are in English (and a few in German). -- kosboot (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Article, please. - Someone inserted the work in Franz Kafka (I feel responsible), and it would be nice just to link, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okey dokey, I'll have a bash at tomorrow. It won't be magnum opus, though, just a viable starter article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here 'tis: In the Penal Colony (opera). I'll add a bit more to it today. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quite amazing what you call "a bit" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I did get a bit carried away :) but (for once!) the French WP was so impeccably referenced with inline citations that I had plenty of sources. I couldn't resist. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here 'tis: In the Penal Colony (opera). I'll add a bit more to it today. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Okey dokey, I'll have a bash at tomorrow. It won't be magnum opus, though, just a viable starter article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Article, please. - Someone inserted the work in Franz Kafka (I feel responsible), and it would be nice just to link, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I note that many of the sources are in English (and a few in German). -- kosboot (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to a split by nationality, e.g Category:American opera composers?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- …which will no doubt re-ignite pointless discussions about many composers' "nationality". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No objections to a split; disputes can be handled on an individual basis. There are 1,687 articles in the category - the benefits far outweigh the costs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- A less contraversial division might be by decade of birth. I look forward to your deciding which nationality to ascribe to Handel, a German writing Italian opera for an English market, and I wonder if, conceptually, opera predates nationality. Presumably most Italian opera was written before Italy existed. And then Mozart, too? Is he an Austrian opera composer? Austria didn't exist then. A German singspiel composer? I hope whoever decides to opts for this division will be happy to put the time into resolving the 1,687 potential individual disputes almost-instinct 08:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- What Michael and Almost-instinct said. Anything involving nationality or ethnicity on Wikipedia is going to cause massive headaches, especially combined with the blunt instrument which is categorisation. AFAIK technically, Stravinsky was a Russian opera composer when he wrote The Nightingale, a French opera composer when he wrote Oedipus Rex, and an American opera composer when he wrote The Rake's Progress.--Folantin (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are aware that an article can be in more than one category? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that's possible, we certainly do that kind of stuff elsewhere. But if the category needs to be split (and it is very large), perhaps a less problematic split might be by century? Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- You are aware that an article can be in more than one category? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- What Michael and Almost-instinct said. Anything involving nationality or ethnicity on Wikipedia is going to cause massive headaches, especially combined with the blunt instrument which is categorisation. AFAIK technically, Stravinsky was a Russian opera composer when he wrote The Nightingale, a French opera composer when he wrote Oedipus Rex, and an American opera composer when he wrote The Rake's Progress.--Folantin (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- A less contraversial division might be by decade of birth. I look forward to your deciding which nationality to ascribe to Handel, a German writing Italian opera for an English market, and I wonder if, conceptually, opera predates nationality. Presumably most Italian opera was written before Italy existed. And then Mozart, too? Is he an Austrian opera composer? Austria didn't exist then. A German singspiel composer? I hope whoever decides to opts for this division will be happy to put the time into resolving the 1,687 potential individual disputes almost-instinct 08:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- No objections to a split; disputes can be handled on an individual basis. There are 1,687 articles in the category - the benefits far outweigh the costs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Any further discussion on this? Otherwise, I'm going to archive in a couple of days. The question can always be re-visited. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Stage band in Rigoletto
Rigoletto#Instrumentation includes "banda", with a redlink to Banda (opera). I have started a draft article, Thnidu/Banda (opera) and would appreciate any elaboration by someone who knows the territory. My main call for help is at Wikipedia:Help desk#Banda (opera).
--Thnidu (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Minor nit: I think you created that page in the wrong namespace; you probably wanted to cteate it in User:Thnidu/Banda (opera). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Verdi's middle-period operas used bandas a lot. So did Rossini and other composers of the era. I've expanded your draft at User:Thnidu/Banda (opera) and added further sources. There is definitely enough now to move it into main space as a viable stub where it can be further expanded. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know in Rigoletto and Traviata (and probably others) that these banda sections are unorchestrated - the idea being that the local house person (conductor?) would orchestrate the banda based on what was available at that particular venue. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this (though maybe it's in Gossett, or in the introduction to the critical edition of Rigoletto). -- kosboot (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Grove Opera has an article by Julian Budden entitled Stage band (linked in WP to Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/41). As well as Rigoletto, there are stage bands in Ballo, Wozzeck and Gloriana, and Budden also points out that the 'banda' music in L'amico Fritz and La bohème was fully scored by their composers. --GuillaumeTell 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does Budden use "Stage band" to include off-stage bands which are still part of the drama? almost-instinct 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes - he says "A group of instruments that perform on stage level, either behind the scenes or in view of the audience." Also, kosboot's remarks above are supported by Budden - "the banda was under separate direction ... the bandmaster scored in detail what the composer wrote out on two staves ...". I'll add these bits and pieces after Voce moves the article into main space. --GuillaumeTell 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Does Budden use "Stage band" to include off-stage bands which are still part of the drama? almost-instinct 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to move the draft into main space, but need some thoughts about the primary title. I'm inclined to use Banda (opera) as in the literature it is usually referred to by the Italian name, even in the Opera America glossary [5]. I rather fear that Stage band will lead to a lot of people arriving there who are looking for something completely different. Voceditenore (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that "Stage band" will be confusing and "Banda (opera)" looks OK. There's currently a redirect entitled Stage (band) which may also muddy the water. "Banda" is the heading of the article in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, so it looks as if Budden is out of step. (There is also extra stuff in the OD of O that I can add to Budden's remarks). --GuillaumeTell 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK I've boldly moved it to Banda (opera). So get to work one and all.:) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that "Stage band" will be confusing and "Banda (opera)" looks OK. There's currently a redirect entitled Stage (band) which may also muddy the water. "Banda" is the heading of the article in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, so it looks as if Budden is out of step. (There is also extra stuff in the OD of O that I can add to Budden's remarks). --GuillaumeTell 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think it'd also be helpful to include an image of a full score for an opera that includes music for banda, so that readers can see how it's written in separately. Any preferred operas? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- For copyright reasons, of the ones listed, it'd have to be Rigoletto or La boheme, I think, unless there's an example that's clearer. (I have to admit I've seen La boheme a few times, and can't recall ever seeing or hearing a band onstage, but then, it's one of those operas that's default modernised.) Can anyone think of one where the banda is so important to the staging that it can't be avoided? Possibly Rossini? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to all of you knowledgeable folk. Thnidu (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Saw the brilliant Scottish Opera performance of Werther the other day (better than most La boheme's I've seen!), and decided to try and finish the last and most difficult of the three Massenet restorations I've been working on. This poster was rather horrifically damaged. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- This image (the poster for the premiere performance of Sapho) is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sapho. Click on the image for a bigger view. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- For comparison, the previous version of this image is at File:Massenet Sapho.jpg. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Mind you, we'll have to see whether this can pass FP. This is not a very pretty poster, one has to admit, so it's going to have to pass on Encyclopedic Value, which is pretty obviously quite high, but requires the FP crowd to read the necessary information about it instead of skimming over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Promoted and now added to the Portal:Opera rotation. Congratulations, Adam. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
One thing I do wish - as much as I love Sullivan and Massenet - is that we could get a better variety of composers into the FP rotation there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- See my comment in the section about your latest nomination. We have 33 pictures in rotation, and they're quite varied. I also use a lot of FPs in the portal that depict other things than just posters or illustrations of actual operas. I use ones that depict settings, opera houses, people whose lives or works inspired operas etc. They're quite useful, as I can often get several operas mentioned per each picture and the whole point of the portal is to introduce the subject as widely as possible to readers. See, for example, Portal:Opera/Selected picture/21. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Spelling Theatre/Theatre again
Another move discussion at Theatre District, New York failed to make the point that it has long been the consensus at en.Wikipedia to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. Those who write about theatre, including New York theatre, should have been notified of the discussion at the obvious WikiProjects but were not. Note that nearly all of the Broadway theatres are called "X Theatre". I have now notified the Theatre and Musical theatre WikiProjects and this project of the discussion, and I hope that, even though we have gone over this again and again, editors will weigh in at Theater District, New York (either way, of course) and demonstrate the consensus again. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, going by the article, it's apparently officially zoned as the "Theater Subdistrict". Perhaps it might be best to just use that, since that spelling, at least, is presumably unambiguous. As for the other options... well, the admin messed up; the policy for ENGVAR is that where there's ambiguity, you use wherever the article got made first; you do not move it. The rest of the discussion now seems to be an attempt to block discussion of a bad admin action, and to make sure it's perpetuated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Opera FPs
I'm running a bit low. Outside of a questionably-good one for Patience (opera), a good Falstaff (opera), and a very-hard-to-scan A2-size Ruddigore, the only other thing on the table is some more Le Cid (opera), and that one's getting a little illustration-heavy at that point. Anyone have any suggestions for good opera illustrations? Or, for that matter, have anything they could scan? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Nancy Storace - Eyes please
We've got an IP, Special:Contributions/68.146.78.244, with a bee in their bonnet about her year of birth which is contrary to all reliable published sources and is "referencing" this stuff to genealogy websites and his own conjectures based a picture from Find-a-Grave. I'm the most recent editor to revert him. I've added 2 highly reliable published sources as an inline citation for the YoB and also added a section to Talk:Nancy Storace. Voceditenore (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast. :-). And a special thanks to Antandrus for fixing the ref. Of all things, I had made a typo in the chapter title which reproduced the wrong date. Doh! Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
On which subject... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)]]
- This image has been nominated as a Featured Picture. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Nancy Storace Portrait By Pietro Bettelini.jpg. - Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Promoted to Featured Picture and now added to the rotation at Portal:Opera. Congratulations, Adam! Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! What d'ye think of this, by the way? [6]
- Neat picture of Lauritz Melchior. Opera stars always seemed to be on ocean liners in those days. If you could get that to FP, it would be great. The current lede image in the article is Fair Use, so that would have to go if this one is used. The one of him with his children is on Commons but has a very dubious copyright status. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe he was traveklling with Camille Saint-Saëns: There's pictures of him with a near-identical background. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Neat picture of Lauritz Melchior. Opera stars always seemed to be on ocean liners in those days. If you could get that to FP, it would be great. The current lede image in the article is Fair Use, so that would have to go if this one is used. The one of him with his children is on Commons but has a very dubious copyright status. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This category and its 4 sub categories have been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Per the discussion, deleted as well as all the subcats. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
New article for a new Scottish opera
I've just created Ghost Patrol (opera) - I've not done it as well as I hoped I might, so I would be grateful for heavy-handed polish! Creating a new article shouldn't be done late in the evening, I suppose almost-instinct 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Since it won a South Bank Show award yesterday, there might be a DYK hook in there for people who like doing those. See the article for a link about that almost-instinct 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's looking good now. I've nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Ghost Patrol (opera). Mind you, it can take ages for it to get reviewed. They have quite a backlog. (I can't review it because I nominated it.) Many times I don't even bother nominating articles I've created because self-nominations require you to review another article before yours will be accepted. They've had so much rule-creep at DYK that reviewing can be a real pain. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Cover illustration by M. Browne and Herbert Railton for the October 1, 1892 Illustrated London News, showing a scene from Sydney Grundy and Arthur Sullivan's Haddon Hall.
I'm going to be on-stage in The Yeomen of the Guard next week, so I'm afraid the opera portal is likely to get some more Sullivan. Little bit worried that portal is getting dominated by Massenet and Sullivan, but, well, you know, there's only so much I can do alone, and I happen to have a lot of Massenet and Sullivan stuff. Hell, I have a few more illustrations to Le Cid yet to come, and there's already two FPs for that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- The image is being discussed for promotion to FP at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Haddon Hall. Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there will be a problem of overload at the portal. We now have 33 Featured Pictures in rotation at the portal. See here. Currently, only 2 are G&S related, and 5 Massenet related (for 4 different operas), and they're all randomized. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, good. I didn't realise how few of the G&S FPs were part of the portal - that was an issue a few years ago, and I just presumed it was still the case. (That said, File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg is probably the best of the G&S FPs, and might be worth adding.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, it passed. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Vital articles
There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Basically, about pruning pop musician bios (and which ones) from the list of "Wikipedia's 10,000 Vital articles". This shows the classical music or opera bios currently on the list. This shows individual classical/opera works on the list. So far no one there has suggested pruning those, or adding any. I'm not sure what difference such a list makes in any case. Needless to say, the overall list is fairly skewed to American/UK pop culture, sports, and entertainment. Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The composer list is pretty skewed to Russian/Soviets for some reason. Aram Khachaturian but no Palestrina? Pshaw! Sullivan rather than Purcell and Britten? Sorry! And it looks like all pre-Baroque composers, with the exception of Josquin, are suffering from low "vitality". However, I know better than to get involved in this sort of "horse trading". --Folantin (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of criteria they're using. Wouldn't surprise me if had to do with the number of references to a composer's works in "popular culture", e.g. this little beauty and this one. Let's face it, Benjamin Britten's stuff doesn't tend to be used in ice-skating routines or Family Guy episodes. So out he goes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Things must be looking good for Julius Fučík then. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Surely 20 Vital Adagios (Decca) should be on the list? almost-instinct 13:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- After being led to that remote and mysterious corner of Wikipedia, I was inspired to investigate further as to what the criteria are for listing someone as one of the "10,000 Vitals". About the only thing I could see being used on the talk page was how many average people would answer yes to "Do you know know who X is?" In this case it was Joe Montana. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- At least W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, and Richard Wagner are on there, so the subprojects are covered. But Joe Montana? Vital? Really? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- After being led to that remote and mysterious corner of Wikipedia, I was inspired to investigate further as to what the criteria are for listing someone as one of the "10,000 Vitals". About the only thing I could see being used on the talk page was how many average people would answer yes to "Do you know know who X is?" In this case it was Joe Montana. - Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Surely 20 Vital Adagios (Decca) should be on the list? almost-instinct 13:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Things must be looking good for Julius Fučík then. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what kind of criteria they're using. Wouldn't surprise me if had to do with the number of references to a composer's works in "popular culture", e.g. this little beauty and this one. Let's face it, Benjamin Britten's stuff doesn't tend to be used in ice-skating routines or Family Guy episodes. So out he goes. Voceditenore (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- The composer list is pretty skewed to Russian/Soviets for some reason. Aram Khachaturian but no Palestrina? Pshaw! Sullivan rather than Purcell and Britten? Sorry! And it looks like all pre-Baroque composers, with the exception of Josquin, are suffering from low "vitality". However, I know better than to get involved in this sort of "horse trading". --Folantin (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if we could get H.M.S. Pinafore, Aida, and... suppose it'll have to be either as they won't take two by one composer - Tosca or La boheme added? Offhand, and excluding the composers already represented, I'd consider them the most popular operas, though I'm no doubt forgetting some. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Merry Widow as well? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Direct them to the Operabase list of the most performed operas? almost-instinct 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt we'd ever get enough of the list to matter, and it appears to substantially underestimate light opera - for example, it severely underestimates light opera, giving Sullivan just 24 performances in the last 3 years, which doesn't even include some major professional productions. Still, it is a start; I'd be pretty happy if La traviata, La bohème, and Carmen got added to the list alongside The Magic Flute. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Direct them to the Operabase list of the most performed operas? almost-instinct 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Comedians" section is great. Did you know that the only funny people in history have been Americans (with the exception of 50% of Laurel and Hardy, 83.33% of Monty Python and an unspecified amount of Bob Hope)? --Folantin (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to see that Lorenzo da Ponte doesn't make it into 'Lyricists and librettists' - still, kudos to Salvadore Cammarano.......(shurely shome mishtake?)--Smerus (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) ry
I've just knocked up a stub for Tony Hall's successor at Covent Garden - feel free to expand it. --GuillaumeTell 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
AfD: Anna Cymmerman
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Cymmerman. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)