Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 118

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 Archive 116 Archive 117 Archive 118 Archive 119 Archive 120 → Archive 125

Pagliacci

Members may be interested in the discussion re the recent addition of a large trivia section at Talk:Pagliacci. From deepest darkest Tuscany... Voceditenore (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Arabella et al: which comes first

  • The Hofmannsthal box under discussion below can be viewed at Template:Hofmannsthal operas. I have removed it from here because it was forcing italicization of this talk page's title. Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Meister und Margarita added the Hofmannsthal info box to each of the Strauss opera articles. I reversed the order so that the composer came first. He/she reverted to librettist on top.

Do we care one way or another, and shall we just allow Felice Romani to appear above Bellini on all articles about his operas or Piave to be up top on the Verdi articles? Is this the reason people go to an article: because of the librettist? or because of the composer? Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:Hofmannsthal operas:
Unnecessary
This navigation box is entirely unnecessary. It has been placed at the top of the articles on operas for which HvH wrote the librettos. Those articles already have a navigation box, Template:Strauss operas, where all of HvH's librettos appear. The presence of two navigation boxes with 100% redundant content is confusing for any reader. I suggest to remove this template from all these articles.
--Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree 100%. There is no reason for the "Hofmannsthal operas" template to exist let alone to enjoy pride of place over the Strauss template. --Folantin (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the boxes entirely and posted a link to this discussion. Wait for fallout..... Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

<squeeze>There was a bit of an intemperate outburst at Template:Hofmannsthal operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I also agree 100%. Apart from the undue weight, and confusion (to the uninitiated, it looks like the opera had two composers!) the clutter seriously hampers image layout. If anyone thinks a navigation template to the librettist's other works is a benefit, then a the template should be at most a horizontal footer, which is the standard for navigation templates on WP. Frankly, I think the composer templates should also be footers. The current clunkers are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images. I'm getting rather fed up with seeing that same old, same old, Verdi box at the top of every single one of his operas, as if there were nothing unique to each of them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do recall some discussion on this issue of the "same old" picture, and would support removing the obvious duplication of info boxes, one on top, the other (far more detailed) below. Maybe we should begin a separate thread below? Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Just adding my support for Voceditenore's comments. Even if the user were about to embark on a complete Hofmannstal template, I think it should still go at the bottom. -- kosboot (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'd favour them as footers in general. As far as I remember, the top-of-the-page templates were only intended to be used as stopgaps when no other images for the specific opera were available.--Folantin (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Composer info boxes on opera articles

Since there is a clear consensus that there is no need for a separate info box for librettists to appear at the top of the page and that there is now interest in re-thinking the issue of a single info box per composer which currently has the same picture appearing on every article, I propose that we use this section to move our discussion forward.

With voceditenore's comment from above—"Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images"—already finding support from three or four editors (including myself),our task will be to determine a replacement format, agree on standard content, and find relevant images. For a start, I'd be happy to work on the Verdi articles. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear majority, that the templates should be moved to the foot of the article. I agree 100%. And I did just that. I don't understand why it was undone. I don't agree that we should start with Verdi. The discussion started with Strauss and Hofmannsthal. These articles should be the ones to be renovated first.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Assuming consensus now exists on the creation of separate opera info boxes, it would appear to me that the design of the box needs to be tackled first. There appears to be no need to remove all the existing boxes until substitutes are created.
To me, it is immaterial as to who starts where: I'm going to research some Verdi images which might be appropriate for each opera. Others may start where they wish. Work can proceed in parallel. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We do not have to find an agreement on standard procedures - as we already have a standard {{Infobox opera}}, as RexxS pointed out on the discussion about the Hofmannsthal template. I've implemented this standard procedure - and it was undone by an other user who obviously disrespects the will of the majority. Here are my proposals

There is no need on discussing the pictures, as both of them are incorporated in the respective article for a very long time. I used the standard {{Infobox opera}}, did not delete the information of the Strauss template, just moved it to the bottom - and added a Hofmannsthal template (on the bottom of the article) as it is just fair to the creator of Electra, Rosenkavalier, Frau ohne Schatten, Ariadne and Arabella. Except Salome, all master pieces of Strauss were based on creations of Hofmannsthal. You should not delete his part of the success. Please tell me WHY? why why why my work was undone and why was I accused of vandalism? Why on earth?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to horizontal navigation boxes at the bottom of opera articles. We just have to consider how to construct them. For a start, there are certain technical matters to be observed, which M&M's creations {{Strauss operas 2}} and {{Hofmannsthal}} don't; these templates ought to be removed from all articles until the mistakes are rectified and this discussion has settled. At minimum, these technical matters include the correct use of the parameter |name= and the proper use of <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Then there are useful things like {{italic title}} – which is not trivial to implement properly – see {{Composer navbox}} and others. Which image should be used? What should be done if there are already navboxes for the composer's other works? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Please think about the way you (mis)treat my work. I have brought a lot of new photographs to Wiki Commons (convincing the Salzburg Festival to donate some thirty pictures of first class performances). Sometimes I have the feeling you are on a mission against my ambition to improve the visual quality of Wikipedia. You try to destroy all my work. TO ALL OTHER PARTICIPANTS OF THIS DISCOURSE: Please compare the visual aspects of The Magic Flute's Second Part (version Michael Bednarek [3]) with my version in the English WP [4] respectively in the German WP [5]. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I favor keeping the composer infoboxes at the top of the articles. The links are much more conveniently located at the top, and the composer's picture is a visual aid in establishing the "brand" of the opera (acting much like a logo). Also, a vertical list is far easier to read than a horizontal one. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Robert's three points have merit and are well worth considering. However, if a consensus for horizontal navigation boxes and their style should emerge, a decision about the vacated space at the top right hand spot of opera articles may need to made. Infobox? Some work-related image? Nothing? There has been extensive discussion on this subject, most recently in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 113, 114, 115, (notably not in 116 & 117) and at Template talk:Infobox opera. I don't have the stomach to revisit those discussions; I think there is nothing that an infobox can uncontroversially show that can't be found in the first three sentences of a properly written article and therefore I can't see how the deployment of such boxes for more than 2000 operas is a profitable exercise, especially when Wikipedia's own mobile app shows the first paragraph before the infobox.
As for M&M's complaint about the treatment of The Magic Flute's Second Part: I join him in inviting everyone to compare the three versions and I encourage critical commentary at the relevant talk pages. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Some arguments. (1) If a reader is interested in a subject, he or she wants written and visual information about the subject. Therefore in all these cases, the subject in all of Wikipedia is shown on top of the page, not the creator — even if the creator gave his or her name to the product (as Porsche and Chanel), even if the creator is more famous then the product itself. Some examples:
Wikipedia Opera should be in line with the rest of our endeavor. (2) Operas usually have two, three or more creators (Wagner being an exception). For example, Elektra has three: Sophocles, Hofmannsthal, Strauss. Without the story and the characters created by Sophocles, without the wording by Hofmannsthal Strauss could not have created this masterpiece. How much he depended on great librettists can easily be detected by studying the fate of his early operas and those written in later years. Apart from Salome and the Hofmannsthal-operas none of his other theatrical works gained a great success. It is unfair in a scientific endeavor to continuously prefer one creator above the other, to give more weight to the composer. Compare the long lasting success of Mozarts Da Ponte-operas with the fate of Franz Schuberts theatrical works. (3) Also I love the beautiful painting of the great Giuseppe Verdi and I use it in the listing of Salzburg Opera productions in German WP, see: [6]. Of course we all are grateful to the composers who gave us these beautiful arias and choruses, overtures and finales, we love their music. But operas are like kids, once they are grown up, they develop their own life, their own history. The history of the reception of certain operas is really exciting and worth to be told. Each operas is a personality that stands on its own. Falstaff for example became a classical festival opera at the Salzburg Festival, while is not performed that often in German repertoire theatre. (4) We do not have to invent anything new, as there already exists the Template:Infobox opera. It is allowed to integrate composer pics in this template as long as there is no specific material available on this particular opera. Just let's not be dogmatic and/or stubborn. Let's make the world of opera in WP even more interesting and exciting, more colorful, with a broader variety of images and stories. Best, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any consensus or even discussion anywhere about moving the composer-image infobox template (which includes a helpful drop-down menu of their operas) from the top of each Wikipedia opera article. Could someone please show me where this discussion and opera-wide consensus took place? And help me understand why we are allowing a standardized, helpful, informative top infobox to be replaced by unhelpful random images at the mercy of edit-wars, poor decision-making, and endless disagreement? Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
OK: this may be visiting old ground, since I discovered the 2013 archived discussion and read some of it. Looking at the section immediately above—"Arabella et al: which comes first"—we can see various comments which appear to support a variety of approaches to info boxes. We may prefer that they agree here, but for now, we have:
Voceditenore said: "Frankly, I think the composer templates should also be footers. The current clunkers are completely out of sync with the rest of Wikipedia. Moving them to the foot, frees up the key "head of article" space for more interesting, relevant, and varied images."
Folantin said: "Yes, I'd favour them [i.e. composer info boxes] as footers in general. As far as I remember, the top-of-the-page templates were only intended to be used as stopgaps when no other images for the specific opera were available.
Additionally, I'd add the following:
Similarly, I support the use of varied images on opera info boxes where they relate to a specific opera. For example, I have just found a nice 19th Century painting depicting the sleepwalker for use on the La sonnambula article. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally think this is a very, very, very bad idea. As I mentioned above, such random infoboxes are subject to unhelpful random images at the mercy of edit-wars, poor decision-making, and endless disagreement. Unlike with films (DVD cover or poster) and books (book cover), for operas there is no set image that we are likely to find and agree upon. I've already seen some really poor choices made. When is this going to end? I think this is just about the worst idea, supported currently by only four editors, to be proposed at WikiProject Opera. We had a great working system (which, like album infoboxes, also gave the reader instant information about the place of the opera in the composer's output), and now it is likely to end up an endless disagreeable and disagreement-filled mess. I propose no action be taken until there is a legitimate RfC or similar, with everyone in this Project (and also people who commonly edit on Opera articles but who may not have this page on their watchlist), opining one way or the other, and lasting the full length of time an RfC should. Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The composer of the music is usually the most important fact to know about an opera, and this is undoubtedly why books like The New Penguin Guide' and Kobbé's Opera Book organize their articles on each individual opera chronologically under the name of the composer (not other creators such as the librettist, etc). I think it is pretty difficult to argue otherwise. And that is probably why the composer infoboxes have become so common in articles on operas. Perhaps opera is a bit unique in this regard, so I don't buy the argument that we need to "conform" to the rest of Wikipedia on this. In fact, when it comes to opera, the composer infobox has become the Wikipedia standard. You know the Wikipedia logo in the upper left of the page is not a very interesting image, but it performs an important function, letting the reader know where he is. I don't think anyone would suggest that it should be removed. I feel the composer infobox is performing a similar function for opera articles. It let's the reader know where he is. The human brain processes facial images very quickly and uses them to categorize lots of other related information. This ability evolved very early, long before writing came along. Facial images are processed much more quickly than written text. In general infoboxes command a lot of attention, drawing the reader's eye away from the lead. Infoboxes and other types of images, particularly those with written text, like title pages, etc, are often just a distraction, delaying the reader from reading the important information in the lead. I don't think the composer infoboxes do this nearly as much, because they have been kept quite simple and streamlined. And I'm sure readers quickly learn that the links to articles about other operas by the composer are there when needed, without having to scroll all the way to the bottom to find them. If these boxes are removed, I know that I for one will greatly miss them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree fully with Robert.Allen. Well put. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You'll note that {{Infobox opera}} puts the composer name at the top of the template, in primary position. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To address the valid technical concerns expressed by user:Michael Bednarek, above. I've created {{Richard Strauss}}, as model for discussion. Note that it's not complete and the works may need to be dated and reordered. It has all of his works, about which we have articles, not just operas (which could be rendered in a separate template in similar style, if desired). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The tempalte should now be near-complete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not in favor of any of the newly suggested templates as a replacement for the composer-image opera template now used at the top of all opera articles. Nor is there anywhere even remotely a consensus that the standard composer-image opera template now used at the top of all opera articles be removed or replaced. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep the present arrangement as the system for operas will become a mess. Some operas will have the composer box with drop-down list in the top right, some will have a picture of some sort associated with the opera, and some will have an info box repeating the information in the first sentence or two (and which according to Michael Bednarek comes below the introductory sentence anyway). But if someone has a really nice graphic they can just put it in the article somewhere appropriate! The current system works well for all operas. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly happy enough to vote against 'branding' operas by putting the same mustachioed portrait at the start of every article. Sparafucil (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Of what I see, the situation is pretty clear: Voceditenore, Folantin, kosboot, VivaVerdi, M&M, Sparafucil, Gerda Arendt - with the technical support of Andy Mabbett - FOR the composer templates as footers - Richard.Allen, Softlavender and most probably Michael Bednarek against it. If my counting is right, its 7 vs 3. I want to thanks all participants and I will try my best to respect the arguments of each side. I agree with the argument of Softlavender that this new solution could lead to heavy disagreements (therefore I promise to behave respectfully and hope all others will do so too). The argument of Richard is valid: "Facial images are processed much more quickly than written text", but there will be also many facial images among the new pics. Due to the small space I believe most of the scene pics will be solos or duets. And there you will find facial expressions as well. Let's please cooperate in an elegant and respectful way, let's further the dialogue and support intellectually this wonderful art of opera.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I note that M&M has omitted earlier comments opposing this change from editors such as User:Kleinzach and User:Cg2p0B0u8m. I could also mention User:Smerus and User:Nikkimaria, although they made their comments some time ago and may have changed their views over time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If we count that way (but why should we?), please don't forget the voices of Montanabw and PumpkinSky (Talk:Rigoletto/Archive 1). Did it occur to you - if you really want to navigate away first thing when entering an article - that you could have the navbox below the infobox, or the navigation as part of the infobox (we tried that last year but I forgot on which talk page)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally find {{infobox opera}} most useful for works where there are relatively few or no other opera articles by that particular composer, or where there is no image available for the composer. Examples where I've added a minimal box to articles I've created or substantially expanded include: Harvey Milk, Giovanna Gray, Pauline and Don Bucefalo. I also use it where the pre-existing "set" all use the box, e.g. Pique Dame (Suppé). A very minimal box is used on some Featured Articles, including L'Arianna and L'incoronazione di Poppea (neither of which were brought to Featured status by an OP member). The idea of developing the box (and the outcome of the discussion related to it) was that it could be used as an alternative "head of article" option, not as a requirement for all opera articles. It was the outcome of trying to find a middle way out of constant and increasingly circular discussion which had dominated the talk page for months. I personally notified all OP members of that discussion on their talk pages (twice—at the outset and near the end). Some folks here may not have been members at the time. Some actively chose not to participate, and I can't say that I blame them given the acrimonious atmosphere that was developing. While there are cogent arguments both for and against the composer navbox at the head of articles, it is clear that there is no strong consensus here to continue "branding" articles in this way, in fact quite the opposite. However, I'd suggest that we play it by ear and not start wholesale conversions of major sets by major composers at this time, unless people are up for a massive barney. There are better ways to use our time and energy. Conversely, I hope that we can avoid a doctrinaire approach, learn to be comfortable with occasional variations when they serve the interests of the article and the reader, and above all treat each other with courtesy and good humour. Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Help -- user edit-warring, vandalising, and posting unhelpful templates

Meister und Margarita is causing all kinds of disruption on Opera articles. I would appreciate help in reverting, warning, and reporting him. Thanks! Just as one small example, the template he created is causing a redlink category to show up on every article he posts it on. Softlavender (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and have told this editor so.Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure he's disposed to discussion or reason. Here are vandalism templates: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace; Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Who is talking of vandalism? You treated my work disrespectfully and unfairly. There is a consensus above that the composer templates be moved to the bottom of the page. Also one voices said that the (important) librettists could also be honored with a template at the bottom of the page. (No one disagreed.) I did just that what the majority agreed upon, and now find myself accused of vandalism. This is utterly unfair.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
@Softlavender: You should be aware that it's a Wikipedia policy that such edits are not vandalism, and that to refer to them as such is considered disruptive. Please use our dispute resolution procedures. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
One might argue that M&M's edits are not vandalism, but they are certainly disruptive. Appropriate behaviour would be to contribute constructively here and await the outcome. Creating half-baked templates and implementing them in a number of articles, stubbornly reverting when their faults are pointed out, is not helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand your unfriendliness. I did not revert anything when a fault was pointed out or when criticism arose. When the first (large) Hofmannsthal template was not liked by you and others, I did not reinstall it. The reverts of Softlavender happen without any explanation. When I asked for the reason, I did not get an answer. What you are saying is simply not true. Please be fair.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: I'm not arguing (nor wiki-lawyering, as your mystery-meat link implies) that they are not vandalism. I'm stating that it is categorically Wikipedia policy to not describe them thus, and that doing so is itself harmful to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
What is a "mystery-meat link"? I don't know. Did Michael add one? If so, you did not link it, which seems to add meat to the mystery. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: Image in the opera portal bar

For your information: Template talk:Portal#Image for Portal:Opera. Giovanni Eteronni (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.197.53 (talk)

  • Note to members, The above discussion relates to a proposal to replace the image in the current template:
i.e. to replace with this:
Other current discussions which may be of interest to project members are:
Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

New opera pictures

Finally I succeeded to convince Innsbruck Festival of Old Music to donate some pics to WP. You can see them at WikiCommons under Domenico Scarlatti. I like some of them very much and we can think about how to use them. There will be additional pics from Salzburg Festival 2014 within a few days - from Trovatore, Don Giovanni, Fierrabras and Charlotte Salomon (world premiere). Please be nice to the pics. Thanks.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's excellent, well done, but you're going to have to get IFoOM and/ or Rupert Larl to confirm the licence to OTRS, soon, if they're not to be deleted. Note that they cannot simply "donate" the pictures "to Wikipedia", but must agree to an open licence, allowing anyone to reuse them, even commercially. If you haven't dealt with such a case before, and need help, let me know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Insert: The festival gave me a letter confirming their agreement. The festival is the owner of the pictures as they commissioned the photographer. But the letter is written in German. I will pass it on to OTRS. It would be of great help if I could get an English draft of a letter of agreement, so that I can pass this to the theaters. Thanks--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
That's OK; Commons-OTRS has volunteers who are fluent in many languages, including German; you can scan and send the letter you have. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Links: the festival in question is Festwochen der Alten Musik in Innsbruck; the Commons category is c:Category:Domenico Scarlatti; Rupert Larl is a professional photographer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Viva-Verdi. Some pics from Il trovatore are now online, as promised. Have fun.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the best way of using these new pictures?

Il trovatore
Opera by Giuseppe Verdi
Plácido Domingo, Anna Netrebko and Francesco Meli, Salzburg Festival 2014
LibrettistSalvadore Cammarano
LanguageItalian
Premiere
19 January 1853 (1853-01-19)
Teatro Apollo, Rome

or

  • In an info box which could look like this:

or

  • Leave Sig Verdi where he was.....?

or

  • put them in an appropriate place in the synopsis?

Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The current arrangement seems to be the worst of all worlds: no top-right navigation box, no infobox, and an image covering 460 pixels. Any of your proposals 2–4 would look better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Viva-Verdi, I'm totally with Michael here, the current version is awful. But I would go further and say that that particular image is not suitable for an infobox either because of its oblong shape, and lack of detail at the necessarily small dimension, even after I adjusted it slightly. It's not even that good an image. Put it somewhere in the synopsis and find a different image for the infobox, if you want to go that route. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it looked so inappropriate as a huge bare image [7], that I have temporarily replaced it with the infobox above. On a smaller laptop screen the lead paragraph was completely squashed to two inches wide. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both of you above. Wasn't my idea to (i) add that photo, which is not the right shape anyway and (ii) that the shape of the image isn't right for the info box either and (iii) think it best be located in the synopsis.
User talk:Meister und Margarita didn't agree with me, so I posted the above. Shall make him aware of the consensus here, and look for a better image for an info box or revert to Verdi alone. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Opera in Israel; Opera Company of Israel

Hello. I recently created Marta Domingo's page, and apparently he was a soprano for the Opera Company of Israel for three years before she went on to become a renowned opera director. I am unable to find an article about opera in Israel beyond the Tel Aviv Performing Arts Center, which is a building. I am working on several projects right now and I thought I would mention this here, if anybody else would like to create a page. I am not sure if there is just one company, or more. It looks like the Opera Company of Israel may be notable; it would be wonderful to have a section about its history (who started/patronized it); what operas they performed; who the main directors/sopranos/tenors have been. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the Opera Company of Israel different from the Israeli Opera, the one based in the Tel Aviv Performing Arts Center? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Good question. I don't know. It may be a different translation from Hebrew. I have asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel as well.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no company with the official name Opera Company of Israel. This book outlines the history of opera companies in Israel and this one the New Israeli Opera. According to the first source Domingo (and Marta) performed with the Israel National Opera (INO) founded in 1948 and closed in the 1980s. After its closure, a new organization grew up which eventually became the New Israeli Opera now known simply as "Israeli Opera" (first production 1985) and now based Tel Aviv Performing Arts Center. There's also an outline of these events in English at the website of the current Israeli Opera website here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, there was also an earlier company The Palestine Opera founded in 1923, closed 1927. The founder, Mordechai Golinkin went on to become a major figure in the Israel National Opera. [8]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. So I think we should revert the redirect and create three pages, don't you? There should be ample info for each page to reach GA status. It's a big project though.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, I think there are enough reasonably available sources to create "good enough" articles for Israeli Opera and Israel National Opera. However, the short-lived company, The Palestine Opera would be very difficult and it would remain a 3 sentence stub probably forever. I would suggest that in addition to ones on the two major opera companies, an article on Opera in Israel would be useful to cover the overall history and some of the minor companies. I did something like that to sort out the mess of "Romanian National Opera" articles. See Opera in Romania. I haven't got round to finishing it, but will eventually include sections on Romanian operas and singers. Something similar could be done with Opera in Israel including mentioning works like Jacob Weinberg's Pioneers, Gil Shohat's The Child Dreams and Solomon Epstein's The Dybbuk: An opera in Yiddish all of which which premiered in Israel. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Update I've now created two "bare bones" stubs for both Israeli Opera and Israel National Opera. I suspect that these two names are used interchangeably as if they were the same company in lots of articles. But I can't be bothered to cross-check 'em right now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Great start!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lily Pastré and the Aix-en-Provence Festival

Hello again. I thought I would mention that I have created Lily Pastré's page, an opera patron and founder of the Aix-en-Provence Festival. I have added the WP Opera tag to her talkpage. You might find her page interesting. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD: Abigail Kelly

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Kelly. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Scola Prosek

Dear opera experts: One more old AfC submission for your perusal. Should it be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed in the SF Chron. as well as other journals, performed by Philip Skinner and John Duykers: very easily notable. 07:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anne. I've cleaned it up a bit and added another source. You could move it to article space since it would probably scrape a pass at AfD. However, I wouldn't say she's "easily notable". There appears to be only one work which has received a review from a significant publication (San Francisco Chronicle). The other reviews (all for the same work) are from small, very local papers. Performances of her works so far are local ones in tiny theatres with very brief runs. I'm not even sure that all of them have been publicly performed. The journal articles were written by the subject (and I've moved them to external links). However, I suspect her latest work, The Lariat may get decent coverage when it premieres in February. Voceditenore (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore; it's now at Lisa Scola Prosek. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


Need advice on disputed edit on Jean-Baptiste Faure by anonymous user

I am a major contributor to the article on 19th-century French baritone Jean-Baptiste Faure. For the section about his voice, I found and transcribed the opening spoken phrase in the purported recording of an aria from La favorite. An anonymous user has twice changed this transcription—incorrectly, in my educated opinion and by my detailed listening. The difference is a single word, but it does entirely change the sense in context of the argument posited in that section. I believe the announcer (or Faure himself) is saying, "Le grand-père du baryton!" The anonymous user believe it's "Le grand air du baryton." The former makes sense as announcement of the identity of the singer. The latter simply does not make sense because shouting "le grand air du baryton" at the beginning of a recording without the announcement of the title of the opera. Which grand air? From which opera? It would be nonsense. Any no early-era acoustical recordings that I'm aware of began with only the announcement of the aria. They always at least announced the identity of the singer.

My two questions to the Opera Project members:

  1. Can other members of this project listen to this recording, make their determination of what's being said, and aid in asserting clarity on this in the Faure article? The recording can he heard at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63PFdrI3YKo
  2. Is it common for these kind of petty disputes over facts to occur, and what is the protocol for ending them?

Thank you,
--Trrill (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Trrill! I hadn't noticed your query before. Sorry for the late reply. I listened to the recording several times with the volume on max, and to my ears, the opening voice clearly says: "Le grand-père du baryton!" But, and this is a big "But"... There is a major problem with that whole passage. It comes across as original research and synthesis, both of which are major no-no's on Wikipedia. The article states "Two non-commercial—and possibly unique—brown wax cylinders exist that are thought to be private recordings of Faure singing at around 70 years of age. Thought by whom? You need to state who thinks that (apart from you) and give a published reliable source for that—a book or journal article. The opening sentence is then followed with what i presume is your own reasoning as to why the voice on the "undocumented" recording is Faure. Again, that needs to be reasoning that was previously published in a reliable source. I suggest you move that passage to the article's talk page with the link to the recording on YouTube, and then work on sourcing it. The problem is, until you can get that section properly referenced, it will be a source of dispute. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gräfin Mariza

As this operetta is known throughout the English speaking world as Countess Maritza. shouldn't the article have this English title?--Smerus (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Smerus. It probably should. It got moved there from its original title, Countess Maritza (now a redirect), about 6 years ago [9]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done moved. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Arturo Spinetti

Dear opera experts: I started editing this old AfC submission, removing promotional language, but soon realized that I couldn't find references with information that matched the text. Am I missing something? Is this really and internationally renowned tenor? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. He's had a few leading roles in very, very minor opera companies (some of them only semi-professional) and is now a freelance singing teacher. The rest is pretty much nonsense. Notice this in the draft (my bolding)
"including associations with La Scala di Milano, the Rome Opera, San Carlo di Napoli, Vienna Staatsoper, the New York City Opera and the Metropolitan".
Whatever his "associations" were with those major companies, they weren't singing leading roles and probably not singing at all. There were zero results for him on the Metropolitan Opera database and zero results in the La Scala archives, for example. It's a waste of time checking the others in that list. The 1990 LA Times review for Long Beach Opera's Cavalleria was also quite telling:
"As Turiddu, a newcomer named Arturo Spinetti resembled a caricature of a bawling tenor. Local authorities touted him, incidentally, as 'a protege of the legendary Mario del Monaco.' Since Del Monaco died in 1982, one must wonder where Spinetti has been all this time."
All other existing mentions of him are literally passing mentions. I personally don't think it's worth the time or effort trying clean up and reference it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore. I suspected this was the case, but I feel better deleting it knowing that you agree with me. I saw that review, but critics can be cruel... —Anne Delong (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, quite cruel, Anne. But on the other hand, I think the more accurate translation of "was a protege of the legendary Mario del Monaco" is likely to be "once took a singing class with Mario del Monaco".:). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SingingZombie back as Goblinshark17

Goblinshark17 (talk · contribs), who contributed to some opera-related articles, has been blocked as a sock puppet of SingingZombie (talk · contribs). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I loathe sockpuppetry. It breaks down trust between editors and wastes an enormous amount of people's time. I well remember the antics of SingingZombie and his IP alter ego. For those of you who don't, see these OP archives. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your project sounds quite useful, Harej. You might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Self-assessment interesting reading in this respect. It was done back in 2011, facilitated by Maggie Dennis as part of an WMF initiative. I believe she did these self-assessments for several projects. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

New featured picture of Franz Lehar

Newly a featured picture!
Newly a featured picture!

Thought you might want to know. I'm running a little low on sources for opera, but am still doing image work for it whenever I can. =) As always, if you see a good possibility, send me a message. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, Adam! I've added it to the Selected Picture rotation at Portal:Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Arctic Magic Flute

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic Magic Flute. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Closed as "merge to The Magic Flute#Adaptations". Merge completed 16 December 2014. Voceditenore (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Amleto

Members' input would be useful re the use of role tables. Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, Viva-Verdi, and I participated in the discussion. The role table was modified accordingly, although the editor who had added the extra column for the production he was in was obviously not happy about it. An IP returned to attempt adding it again [10] and was reverted. More details on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, WP will get it right

As reported in The Signpost, this edit from August 2009 at Bluebeard's Castle received some intense scrutiny by the Southern Methodist University about the opera's alleged American premiere there in 1946. It never happened. Sigh. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But interestingly, The Oxford Dictionary of Music also claims that it was given its first performance in the US in concert version in Dallas 1946, although it doesn't mention SMU. Likewise, Opera: An Encyclopedia of World Premieres and Significant Performances, Singers, Composers, Librettists, Arias and Conductors, 1597-2000, p. 141:
"Dallas, Texas, Fair Park Auditorium, Jan. 8, 1946 (concert performance, in English as Duke Bluebeard's Castle)".
Likewise Opera News 1974:
"Antal Dorati, who studied with the composer and gave the first U.S. reading of Bluebeard's Castle in Dallas (1946)".
So unless those three sources were also wrong about this concert performance, we were only half wrong. Antal Dorati's autobiography, Notes of seven decades, may have more, but it's only in snippet view at Google Books. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Current deletion discussions

Voceditenore (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Bellissima Opera

Hello, opera experts. Would anyone like to review this AfC submission? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne! I reviewed it wearing my copyright clerk hat first and basically gutted it. I've left an extensive note on the talk page re the copvio + inappropriate promotionalism. Having said that, it probably stands a 50/50 chance (even its present state) of surviving an AfD. There are multiple articles about it listed in the references, albeit only in the very local press. I'd suggest moving it to main space and letting it take its chances. I'll put it on watch in case the creator nips back to re-add the advertising. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore, I have added a CD review and an out-of-town news article and accepted it. I think I may have had an edit conflict with you, though, and although I backed out and re-added the material I may have affected your last edit - please check. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't seem to have affected my edit, Anne. It looks like I meant it to. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Almanacco template for the Amadeus Almanac

(Previous threads here and here. Redux: the Amadeus Almanac changed its website address, breaking hundreds of links from enWP. I wrote a template called Almanacco to provide a clean interface to this resource, and to protect us from the effects of any further changes. Now read on ...)

After a wikibreak of a couple of months, the template is 'finished': a kindly wizard at the Village Pump (Technical) has fixed the handling of accents, and I have added the 'linkonly' option suggested by Robert.Allen. I've added examples to the documentation and filled out the testcases for all permutations of parameters.

Executive summary: the template takes two search parameters: a fully specified date (dmy) and/or a search text (match). At least one of these must be present, but both are usually required to select a single entry in the Almanac. There are two optional display parameters: label controls the text of the actual link, and linkonly=t can be used to suppress the non-link pre- and post-fix texts describing the Amadeus Almanac.

There's a list of the broken links at User:Scarabocchio/tbd. I'll work my way through them as time permits. If you would like to help, remove a block of titles to your own space so others can see what is in progress. Scarabocchio (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, Scarabocchio! And for your updates to WikiProject Opera/Online research. Much appreciated! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Boy Soprano vs. Treble

The Article [11] is listed under the WikiProject-Opera heading, yet there are far more roles that boy trebles play than are seen in the frightfully few opera roles. Is it possible to unlink this page with the Opera project, or create (as was proposed several years ago) a second page for Trebles in general focused on everything else but the operatic roles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoonboy (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe what User:Dragoonboy means is that WikiProject Opera has a banner on the talk page of Boy soprano. That banner does not mean that WP Opera has full control of the article, it just means that WP Opera takes an interest in following the article (since it does contain some significant operatic content). Take a look at the talk page of Talk:Maria Callas (for example), which is bannered by 4 different projects. I've seen articles that have been bannered by 6 or more projects. So all it means that the project takes an interest in the content that is relevant to that particular project. kosboot (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A more extreme example: Talk:George H. W. Bush -- with 11 banners. kosboot (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Dragoonboy. I've moved your comment down here. It doesn't really belong in the "Article creation and cleanup requests" section. Anyhow, at the moment Treble (voice) redirects to Boy soprano and that article already covers the various aspects of the treble voice in general. In my view there's no need for a separate article. Rather, the article could be retitled to "Treble (voice)" with a redirect from "Boy soprano", i.e. the reverse of the current situation. The lead sentence would be amended accordingly (as well as replacing the term "boy soprano" with "treble" where appropriate in the remainder of the article's text). I suggest you open a discussion about this at Talk:Boy soprano to see if there's a consensus for this change. Those sorts of issues should be worked out there not here, and I suspect there could be consensus for such a change.
As kosboot says, the WikiProject Opera banner is not a categorization. There's no reason to remove it. It has no effect on either the article's content nor on its actual categories. Like all project banners, it merely indicates that a particular project has an interest in the article and that its members may be able to provide useful input/resources for editing. All the classical voice types are within the scope of this project. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The weirdest talk page tagging I've come across is Talk:The Cunning Little Vixen, which is apparently of interest to WikiProject:Dogs. --Folantin (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Folantin, Lapák the dachshund is a key role and... dachshunds are very cute . In the interest of spreading opera, dachshunds, and trivia all over Wikipedia, I've now added him to Dachshund, List of fictional dogs and List of fictional canines. Onwards and upwards! Voceditenore (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Dogs in opera? hmmmm ... a few operatic settings of Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog (Anissegos, Raskatov,..?), Russell Hepplewhite's Laika the Spacedog for ETO, Krása's Brundibár(?) ... ... Scarabocchio (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Article creation and cleanup requests

Article requests

In a now archived discussion about List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, GuillaumeTell suggested that the following conductors/directors/designers really ought to appear in Wikipedia. I'm copying it here for editors who may be interested in creating these articles:

Per this discussion

Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (latest update 06:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Update: Dr. Blofeld has now created basic stubs for all of the above. I'll leave them up for the moment, as they need to be checked for bannering and possibly the addition of further references and/or external links with information for expanding the articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I have bannered all of the articles, but have not addressed referencing, external links, or category issues.4meter4 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have started this translation from the German wiki. Cricketgirl (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Cleanup requests
  • Per this discussion, the following transwikied articles from the Italian Wikipedia need considerable clean-up:
Stefano Gobatti • Luigi Bolis • Lando Bartolini • Gaetano Bardini • Basilio Basili • Lamberto Bergamini • Angelo Bendinelli • Armando Bini • Adolfo Bassi
  • Per this discussion, José Cura needs a better and more factual article with better referencing.
    • Update: after I'd done some reorganising, User:ManukaFonsworth came in and did a major expansion of the article with lots of supporting refs. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

New template: Operabase

Having a (probably temporary) grasp of how templates are coded, now seems to be the best time to create more...

{{Operabase}} is a wrapper around performance searches by composer and/or work on Operabase. It takes two search parameters, called (inspiredly), work and composer and creates a suitably labelled link. From the documentation:

  • {{Operabase | work=Die tote Stadt }}
  • {{Operabase | composer=Alexander Raskatov }}
  • {{Operabase | work=Otello | composer=Rossini }}

will display as:

  • {{Operabase | work=Die tote Stadt }}
  • {{Operabase | composer=Alexander Raskatov }}
  • {{Operabase | work=Otello | composer=Rossini }}

As in the {{Almanacco}} template, there are two parameters allowing you to override the two components of the link format: label=linktext, linkonly=t. See the documentation for more details. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am just copying my comment from The Kiss: The Operabase link is not quite accurate as the first one is actually Béla Zerkovitz's Csókos asszony at the Budapest Operetta Theatre. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the template is linking to a page of search results, rather than a unique identifier, as used by comparable templates. AIUI, this is generally frowned upon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the cross-posting, Cg2p0B0u8m. I wish you had said that the listing for The Kiss was also returning The Kissing Lady (Csókos asszony) by Zerkovitz, though. You would have saved my eyebrows some exercise :-) I'll have a look if there's anything I can do about this, but adding |composer=Smetana to your link will work in the meantime: {{Operabase|work=The Kiss|linkonly=t|label=work only}} and {{Operabase|work=The Kiss|composer=Smetana|linkonly=t|label=work and composer}}. Scarabocchio (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

New template: GroveMusic

The {{GroveMusic}} template searches the Grove Music Online site for a given text, or links to a specific article text. The site is available to subscribers only, so not all Wikipedia users will be able to access the results. This is, however, still a great improvement over a reference to a book.

There are two ways of using the {{GroveMusic}} template to access the Grove Music Online site: 

{{ GroveMusic | id=article-id }}

links directly to the article text. See the documentation for details. 

{{ GroveMusic | match=string }}

searches the site for the given search string.

Again, two parameters give you control over link format: label=linktext, linkonly=t. Example:

  • [[Roger Parker|Parker, Roger]] (1998), "{{GroveMusic|id=29191|match=Giuseppe Verdi|label=Verdi, Giuseppe|linkonly=t}}" in Stanley Sadie, (Ed.), ''The New Grove Dictionary of Opera'', Vol. Four. London: MacMillan Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-333-73432-7 ISBN 1-56159-228-5
  • Parker, Roger (1998), "Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. 2001. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.29191. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |label= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |linkonly= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |match= ignored (help)" in Stanley Sadie, (Ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Vol. Four. London: MacMillan Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-333-73432-7 ISBN 1-56159-228-5

Other options mentioned in the documentation might change as a result of feedback or further thought.

(Edited) Scarabocchio (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Old templates: NewGrove1980, NewGrove2001

There were two templates created in 2006 to simplify the citation of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians: {{NewGrove1980}} for the first edition in 1980, and {{NewGrove2001}} for the second edition in 2001. Between them, the two templates are used 110 times. They both take the article title and author, the volume number and the page range, eg:

The syntax is as follows: {{NewGrove2001|article|author|vol|pages}}
Example usage and its result:
{{NewGrove2001|Buxtehude, Dieterich|Snyder, Kerala J|iv|695–710}}
Snyder, Kerala J. "Buxtehude, Dieterich", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: Macmillan, 2001), iv, 695–710.

I'm thinking of updating the layout to something like this:

Snyder, Kerala J (2001), "Buxtehude, Dieterich", in Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. iv (2nd ed.), London: Macmillan, pp. 695–710

Is this overlinked? should the ISBN be included? is it worth revisiting these templates to add any additional features, eg the wikilinking of author(s)?   Scarabocchio (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been (mildly) bold and rewritten the template:
Sadie, Stanley; Tyrrell, John, eds. (2001). "{{{title}}}". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Vol. {{{volume}}} (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
Scarabocchio (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I've converted these templates to call {{Cite book}}. There are still issues around granularity (author first names and last names should be separate fields). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_118&oldid=1190145704"