Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 → Archive 80
Archives Table of Contents


What constitutes a start class article??

I'm rather intrigued as to why the stub tag was removed from La fausse esclave. In most department of wikipedia this would still be labelled as a stub. Basically I look at is as "What does this article tell me about the opera"? The answer is very little. The Bald One White cat 12:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So how about expanding it up to your own idea of what constitutes "start-class" so we can compare and contrast. --Folantin (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Die weiße Rose (opera), recently started is a clear start class. There are shorter articles also which meet start class requirments too like the similar Le cinesi, but I think it is a great deal to do with the plot of the opera. If the article tels as practically nothing about the opera itself other than it is an "intrigue about a father and daughter" do you think this is a satisfactory summary of the plot? The Bald One White cat 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you go ahead and expand it. In fact, the plot summary is probably the only bit of this article that could be expanded to any degree, given this is a short, obscure opera by Gluck which doesn't survive in full score. --Folantin (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't say "intrigue about a father and daughter". It says "The story is of an intrigue undertaken to secure a father’s assent to his daughter’s marriage." I would say that's sufficient to give an idea of what the plot involves. It's a one act work, stuffed full of arias, originally described in the libretto as a mêlé d'ariettes. Given that the full score is lost, and the opera is not going to be performed unless someone tries to reconstruct it, what's there seems reasonable for a "start". It might be too short a summary if we were talking about something like La traviata, but we're not. The "start" in this case seems in line with this. Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I also agree with Grutness in that stubs are not defined by the length of article. It is the lack of content which is necessary to give a basic understanding of an article and I don't believe that article is quite there. One rule can't apply for one opera article and not for another. If it is not notable enough to have a seperate article why not merge into a list to save short articles on each one if they can't be expanded? The Bald One White cat 13:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already asked you to lead by example by showing us all how you would expand this article - which is already far longer and more informative than its equivalent in the Viking Opera Guide (to take one example) - to meet your own exacting standards of a "start-class" page. --Folantin (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, calm down. No need to get snippy with The Bald One. He is just trying to help. In this case I think it is a borderline call. From what those more familiar with this opera have said, it seems unlikely for more information on this work to be readily available and the current treatment of the subject is therefore fairly complete. However, since an extant keyboard version does exist, it is possible that some expansion on the music analysis and synopsis could occur; though the liklihood of finding a published resource with such information seems rather slim if not impossible. I personally would not be bothered by either rating it as a start or a stub. I would say to The Bald One that when looking at operas, one has to take several factors into account when deciding whether an article is a stub or not. If the score and/or libretto of a work no longer exists, than the synopsis of the particular work may no longer be known or only be known in part. In those cases, it would be silly to rate the article as a stub simply because the synopsis is short, because that short treatment of the synopsis may be all that is now known about the work's plot. This is the case with numerous opera articles. In general, a detailed synopsis is part of the project's requirements for start rated opera articles. However, in cases like these where a more detailed synopsis is unlikely to be found, we often adjust our rating of the article accordingly. La fausse esclave, an obscure opera without an existing score, is one of these cases. I wouldn't worry about this projects decision over what is and what isn't a stub. If a short article's stub tag is removed by someone in the project, it is usually because they are more familiar with the work in question and know better about what information is and is not available (by which I mean whether the information still exists or not). To those in the project, this would be a good example of where assessment notes would be helpful on the article's talk page. Nrswanson (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, thank you. I'm genuinely interested in seeing how Blofeld is going to expand this article to his version of "start-class". --Folantin (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well we both know that doing so would be impossible and your response was therefore a bit unkind; particularly because this editor may not be familiar with the difficulty of writing articles on operas or other works that no longer have exsisting scores, librettos, manuscripts, etc.Nrswanson (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well remember that to the "outsider" a]they are not aware it is an obscure article b] they do not know how it differs significantly from other french language operas c] they are not to know that the plot cannot be expanded d]they would wonder why the article exists in the first place if it is not really of note or a fuller article cannot be written. e]placing it as a stub increases the likelihood somebody would come along and expand it so it isn't a big deal. f]|Either way you look at it, it is still a short article which compared to other opera articles looks very sparse but I know nothing about this opera nor know what sources could be used to expand it to therefore I must depart. The Bald One White cat 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments here - firstly, stub and Stub-Class are completely different things - it is perfectly acceptable for an article to be assessed as Start-Class by a WikiProject and still be marked as a stub for general Wikipedia editors (or be marked as Stub-Class and not be marked as a stub). As such, there should be little problem if a -WPO-assessed Start-Class article has a stub template. Secondly, perhaps WPO should consider the possibility of using {{notstub}} on any articles that its members think have been expanded as far as they can? After all, you are the experts in this field - you'll know better than the majority of stub-sorters when something's reached its maximum. Grutness...wha? 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple of comments/queries... First I checked out {{notstub}} and it appears from the text below it, that's not in use yet. Is that true or does the template page just need updating? It could be useful though. I would also suggest that for articles like La fausse esclave, people leave a brief note on the talk page or in the assessment section on the OP banner as to why it's not really a stub despite its shortness. This would help editors not familiar with the subject.
Second, these issues re lost scores, 'obscurity' etc. aren't static. Often times they're found again or new info comes to light, and this will naturally lead to a further expansion of an existing article or the creation of new one, e.g. Argippo, Motezuma, Otto mesi in due ore. Thus, if a short opera article, especially one by a key composer has a reasonable amount of information, it's worth keeping it rather than merging it into a list, especially if the list doesn't exist yet. We do sometimes re-direct/merge. Someone created a spate of one-line unreferenced articles on obscure Vivaldi operas, e.g. [1]. Some we managed to expand slightly beyond that and they still have potential. Others were redirected to List of operas by Vivaldi. So we like to keep our options open rather than have hard and fast "rules" about it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely dire

Spanish opera has just appeared. The subject is a worthy one. The execution most unfortunate. ;-) Anyone care to try a rescue job? I wouldn't be able to even start working on it for a week. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty weak. I did look into writing something on this subject once but I'm no expert on this area. I managed to get some information then found almost all of it was already in the extensive Zarzuela article, so I gave up my plan. Let's face it, for most of its history, Spanish opera = zarzuela (until we reach the 20th century with de Falla, Granados, Roberto Gerhard and so on). Also, we'd need to consider whether we were covering the whole of Spanish-language opera, including that of the Americas. I think the other "national opera" articles are similarly divided by language rather than citizenship of the composers. --Folantin (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we should follow the other articles and include that of the Americas as well, especially stuff written while the countries were still Spanish colonies, but even after. The article can always fork in the unlikely possibility that someone wants to write a huge section on... say... Cuban opera. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and put together a passable start to the article but obviously there is room for a lot of expansion.Nrswanson (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Composer of the month for November

In December, we can expect a lot of traffic to Puccini-related articles. I'd suggest that attempting to get Giacomo Puccini up to FA [So it can run on the front page for his anniversary], and, if possible, La bohème, Tosca, and Madame Butterfly to GA would be our best goal for this month. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. I'd rather wait until 2009 until we implement this new approach. Plus, with the speed the GA process moves at, we're unlikely to get a review any time in the near future. (Plus, the whole GA system is flawed beyond repair - but that's another story). --Folantin (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Alternatives:
  1. Hindemith/Prokofiev red links: Paul Hindemith (1895-1963): Die Harmonie der Welt, Hin und zurück, Lehrstück, The Long Christmas Dinner, Wir bauen eine Stadt; Sergei Prokofiev (1891–1953): Maddalena, The Story of a Real Man. Plus three red-linked Martinu operas?
  2. Vivaldi? See, for instance, titles red-linked at List of operas by Vivaldi --Folantin (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Folantin, about waiting 'til 2009 to start a new approach and about the GA system. I suggest we go with one of the two alternatives he's proposed above. My own slight preference is for Vivaldi, but I'm happy either way. We could use the other set for December. In the meantime, how about if we all take a look not only at Puccini but also at the articles on his operas and work informally on improvements. It's less daunting to tackle small bits at a time. I'll start a section below where we can note some of the Puccini stuff that need working on. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do Vivaldi for November (I apologise for rejecting him before because I didn't think he was manageable given the large number of operas he wrote - but, of course, many are lost or are pasticci). For December, Hindemith/Prokofiev plus some other outstanding odds and ends by major opera composers (one Dvorak opera, two Bizets, I think). The Hindemiths are mostly short pieces and there shouldn't be that much to say about some of them. Then a new way of looking at things for January, 2009. --Folantin (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've filled in the CoM November form with the Vivaldi red-linked operas, since time is fleeting. If anyone wants a last minute change, let us know. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine by me. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of adding a mention that we're working to improve Puccini (since a lot of us are, I think) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Open access article on the Oxford DNB: Music in Britain: 1905 and after

Music in Britain: 1905 and after is a current Featured Essay on The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some of you may find it useful. I'm not sure how long it will remain open access. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image from commons

I just stumbled on this: it:Immagine:Benelli_e_Montemezzi.jpg (Imagine, no it: Montemezzi article!) with its warning not to move to commons, although the caption identifies it as first decade of the 20c and the subjects do look quite a bit under their mid-forties, making the photo pd-US. How would one move it, exactly? Another case was Hans Bethge's portrait, not pd and now gone from de-wiki but once on the German article without being linkable from en-wiki. Sparafucil (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether images like that are sufficiently in the public domain for Commons generally depends on the creator having been dead for 70 years or on the photo having been published before 1923 - not on the date of its creation. But in those cases you must explicitly specify the name of the author and the date of creation, and/or the date and place of publication. If that data is unknown, it can't be posted in Commons. English Wikipedia has slightly less strict rules. If the person in question is deceased and the photo doesn't qualify for public domain, you can upload it (to English Wikipedia only) under fair use. But you must include a detailed fair use rationale. Here's an example of ones I've used in those cases: [2], [3]. You can also get clarification for a particular image by posting a query at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient vocal method

This article is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient vocal method if any members wish to comment.Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Free access to SAGE academic journals online

They are offering free online access to all 500 of their journals through October 31st. All you have to do is register so they can send you email adverts. (In my experience, they don't overdo this). The journals that would be most relevant to this project are: Psychology of Music, General Music Today, and Media, Culture & Society but some of the anthropology and history journals might also have something. You can sign up here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DNB article on John Blow

Today John Blow is the featured biography at DNB. You can get this detailed article here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html. I am sure it will help anyone interested in early English music to expand this article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation

Please see the discussion here. Marjorie Thomas was a contralto (in those far-off days when contraltos existed (Oh! the joys of Kathleen Ferrier!); I know, I saw her, heard her, and have the records. But her range extended into what is now considered to be that of the mezzo-soprano. So Marjorie Thomas was a contralto who sang both contralto and mezzo roles. Is there any reason why she should not enjoy the categories of both contralto and mezzo-soprano? Or is there a "rule" against it? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Would that make every soprano who sings Carmen a mezzo? Or every bass who sings Falstaff a baritone? Or a bartione who sings Oreste a tenor or ... well, you get the picture. When she sang mezzo roles did she sing them like a mezzo or like a contralto? My feelings are that (a) we would be in danger of getting into a lot of confusion and that (b) we should go with what the singer themselves call themselves. Did she ever refer to herself as a mezzo? (and where is the boundary of OR in this instance?) almost-instinct 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grove help, please

I have recently been working on the articles for several opera composers: Eugen d'Albert, Alfred Cellier, and Frederic Clay. Unfortunately, I do not have access to Grove. Would someone kindly check the Grove entries for these composers and add any relevant information and a reference to the Grove entry? Thanks for any assistance! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists needing clean up

Hello, the featured list List of important operas currently has a clean up tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion0422 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It does? Do you mean that single "citation needed" tag where note number 239 would go? Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL... and WikiProject France have just requested a photograph for the composer Jean-Joseph Mouret (died 1738). Brilliant stuff. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The list turned up here, and I'm just letting the project know about it. It may be only one unsourced statement, but that is too many, since these lists are supposed to represent wikipedia's absolute best. It shouldn't be that hard to find a ref, so maybe you should just fix it instead of being rude. --- Scorpion0422 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Why not try to source this claim instead of shooting the messenger?...
"Le due gemelle (José Maurício Nunes Garcia). Music now lost. Earliest known opera by a non-European composer"?
The fact that it's the earliest known opera in Brazil and that Nunes Garcia was not born in Europe is easy to source. But is the rest an extrapolation? The claim isn't even mentioned in the composer's WP article. Ditto the "photo" of Jean-Joseph Mouret. OK so templates are inflexible and only say "photograph" when maybe "image" would be better but it's possible that a portrait of him exists and it would improve the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The "offending" unsourced statement has now been removed. Whoever added it can do the sourcing. As for the "photo template", it's completely pointless. I'm sure everyone with eyes to see can tell the article has no image. The correct response to this template is another one. --Folantin (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
True re it being obvious there's no image. But adding the template puts the article here: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in France. I can see where that would be potentially useful to people in the French project. Anyhow, in the great scheme of things, it doen't really do any harm unlike this little beauty. Voceditenore (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

November Singer(s) of the Month

Here's a suggestion in light of the Puccini 150th coming up in December - some Puccini role creators who still lack articles...

Note: I've selected ones about which there is a reasonable amount of information. As for the rest of the many other red-linked Puccini creators, I'm wondering if they ought to have red links at all. Many were in small parts and do not even appear to have entries in Grove or any other significant biographical information available. Are they feasible future articles? If not, my suggestion would be to de-link them and add any available information (a few have birth and death dates) in a footnote. Loads of red-links in an article don't look good and they also give a distorted impression of the singer's notability. Opinions? Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: The October SoM was pretty successful. We got reasonable articles for all 3 of the original 'nominees': Celestina Boninsegna, Eugenia Burzio and Lina Bruna Rasa, including a DYK for Celestina Boninsegna on today's main page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Your suggestions sound just fine. I just created the article on Emma Carelli‎ and I will be gettting to Maria Labia in the next day or two, so all the articles should get done. FYI, I never add anything to the list that I am not prepared to write myself. :-)Nrswanson (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


I have found one recording for these proposed singers:
Perini in a quartet from Rigoletto with Caruso, Amelita Galli-Curci, and Giuseppe de Luca.
I'd probably want to run that one past our copyright checkers - it's clearly pre-restored - but I think that it'd be a great inclusion if we can. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've filled in the SoM form as per above, as tomorrow is November 1st. Voceditenore (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

It has been my observation that this project has been very successful at expansion of new articles but has not been as successful at improving the articles we already have. I would like to suggest that perhaps we start another "of the Month" section for already existing articles that we want to work on together to improve. This could also be a forum for getting some more GA, FA, and FL rated articles in the project. What do you all think?Nrswanson (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking along the same lines. In my opinion, "Composers of the Month" in its current form is running out of steam because we've created articles for the works of almost all the major opera composers. Beyond that, the obscurer composers are best dealt with by individual members who have expertise and/or interest in such areas (there are some off-the-beaten-track Baroque pieces I plan to work myself on but I'd never suggest putting them up for CotM). I'd suggest we keep going with the current format for the next two months then replace it with a different approach in January, 2009, one more focussed on improving our core content. I'd say we should replace Composer of the Month with Opera(s) of the Month then choose a single key work or group of works (e.g. Mozart's Da Ponte operas) and try to bring them up to at least B-class. For instance, Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) would be an ideal candidate for this treatment. Our current article certainly doesn't do justice to a work of such importance.--Folantin (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree. Although, I would prefer to trim down the already existing sections to fewer articles each month, rather than getting rid of any one section. That way we will still be expanding, though at a slower rate, and improving existing articles at the same time.Nrswanson (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive cat changes

There has recently been a major overhall of the Category:USA opera companies into sub-categories by state. I'm not sure I like this. Most states only have one or two companies and only a few, like New York State, have a significant number.Nrswanson (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A further problem is that we have a competing cat Category:American opera companies going on as well. User:Raven1977 created Category:USA opera companies on November 12 and has been switching things over.Nrswanson (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Having been reviewing a week's worth of edits on my watchlist and having seen all these new categs, I have to wonder what is their value. Shall we keep them? Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I personally see little value in creating tons of sub cats that are unlikely to populate beyond one or two articles. Further, List of North American opera companies already provides divisions by state for those who want to search by region. I like the old system better.Nrswanson (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope that we can get more support from this group and reverse this trend by trying to establish a common policy. The sooner the better, as it will be easier to reverse the changes. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My watchlist is also infested with various category changes for British and some Continental Europe companies. Someone needs to contact WikiFairy Raven1977 to ask a) what it's all about and b) why hasn't the Opera Project been notified? I'm off to bed now, but could do so tomorrow if no-one else has done it by then. --GuillaumeTell 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed it too and find it very un helpful. It's also being implemented in a very odd/confusing fashion. See, for example Category:New York opera companies. Read this: Template:Category_redirect#Instructions for the template that was added to the top of the old category pages. I'm also going to leave a message on Raven1977's talk page asking them to come here and join the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Done - Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
I was busy this morning, but it's probably not worth adding my piece as well. Maybe I'll do so if s(he) doesn't turn up here within the next day or two. --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm very sorry for any disturbance I caused. I was honestly trying to help. The category "American opera companies" was the problem I came across, and in my opinion it was wrongly named. There's a North America, South America, and Central America; but the category "American" was being used solely for US opera companies. So I was the one who created the category USA opera companies and put various items in them as I thought was applicable. I also created the category, "Opera companies by country", and then put the countries into them. There were already a few categories for countries, and it seemed like a better way to categorize various companies than just in the broad category "Opera companies". The states' categories I really don't care about, I realized as someone mentioned that the various states don't really have many companies in them. So if you'd rather have them gone, I'd be glad to put their contents back in, say, "USA opera companies" or North American opera companies. But anyway, I apologize again for not running this by the opera project first, I didn't know a) the project existed, and b) that my changes would be so controversial. Raven1977 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a further comment: I went to the help page for Category naming to see if there were any guidelines first, before I created new categories, and I saw nothing mentioning Opera companies, and how to name the categories for them. Perhaps it would be good to get something about opera's preferred categorization onto that page so future people don't make massive changes that turn out to be against consensus. Raven1977 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the above. Personally, I think that "Opera companies by country" is fine, but there's no need for sub-categories, e.g. US states, Scotland/Wales etc. As for "American opera companies", were you also planning to do something about the categories from Category:American 5 star officers, Category:American abbots ... all the way to Category:American zoologists and Category:American Zoroastrians?
In the further comment, were you referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)? --GuillaumeTell 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with categories for Scotland and Wales? Aren't those countries too? I have to admit confusion as to them not having their own category.
  • And in regard to other categories having designation of "American", I'll reference WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I know it's largely used in deletion debate, but I think it can apply here as well, in that just because other stuff is not quite right, doesn't mean we shouldn't change what we come across that can be corrected when we have the time/resolve to do so.
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) was the area I was referring to, yes. I think I tried to use its general guidelines when I named the categories as I did, since I didn't see any specific criteria there for opera-related stuff. I'll be glad to remove the contents of the categories for US states, although I am unsure how to get those categories deleted? So if someone wishes to do so once they're empty, or will point me in the correct direction to do it, I'll be glad to do that too. Again, I apologize for any disruption or aggravation caused here.Raven1977 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually Wales and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom and are governed by British parliament and Queen Elizabeth II. It's probably best to lump the UK companies all into one. See how List of opera companies in Europe is structured. Nrswanson (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
So, under British opera companies then, or under (the currently non-existing) UK opera companies? Raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if British would cover everyone in the UK or not. I'd hold off until some of our UK editors chime in. I think British might be a more specific designation but I might be wrong.Nrswanson (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
"British" does indeed cover the entire UK. Geographically it refers to the entire British Isles, in which case it includes Ireland. More commonly, it refers to just UK, sort of like "American" refers to just USA. Either way, it does include Scotland and Wales. (Or if you want to separate out Scotland and Wales, then the word you want is "English".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iglew (talk • contribs) 08:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Two more questions. Is the preference to de-populate the contents of US states into category of USA opera companies, North American opera companies or American opera companies? Even though I personally think the latter category is improperly named, if consensus is that it's preferred, that's fine. I don't want to step on further toes, so I'll wait for further clarification on that before I unpopulate the US states' categories. Also, Re Category:New York opera companies, does that need de-populated as well? It seems to be more needed than any of the other US states' categories, as there are a good number of companies that qualify for the category. Raven1977 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well speaking as an American, I prefer American. I know others can technically use the term but its the way we refer to ourselves. Its the word that identifies us as a people. Not using it just doesn't sit right with me. It's like saying we can't be ourselves. It just seems wrong on a personal level. I can't explain it better than that. To give you an example, if I worked in Germany as a teacher I would no longer think of myself as a "United States teacher" but I would always be an "American teacher" where ever I lived and worked. Nrswanson (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from but in my opinion "American" is a designation that's a little too "USA-centric" a term, when we're dealing with an encyclopedia that's being edited and used worldwide. But if "American" has consensus, so be it. Raven1977 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that USA or UK are adjectives. So I would prefer "opera companies in the UK/USA" as the cat names.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If we organize them by geography as opposed to nationality that would be fine. We would then have to convert all of the other cats as well. (Opera companies in France, Opera companies in Italy, etc.)Nrswanson (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That naming convention does make more sense. There would be a lot of leftover categories to get deleted, but I assume there's a process to accomplish that. Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I inject a note of sanity here? I am not an American, but I have no problem with anyone using the term "American" to describe a citizen of the USA. Do Canadians think of themselves as Americans? No, they don't. Do Mexicans, or Chileans, or ... - no, none of them do. "Americano" in Spanish (as used in Central and South America) doesn't mean a person from the continent(s) of America, it means a citizen of the USA. I imagine that the same or similar word is used by the Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. So there is no reason why Opera Project "by country" categories - and those don't exist only for opera companies but also for opera houses, singers, composers, etc., etc. - should differ from "by country" categories elsewhere in WP. There is common sense and there is pedantry, and I am on the side of common sense. --GuillaumeTell 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I saw something that I felt was incorrect, so I took a good couple of hours to correct the issue. And really the more I think about it, it's quite a mountain out of a molehill here, over categories of all things, for goodness sake. In the amount of time this was discussed, especially the amount of time it was talked about before anyone said anything to me on my talk page about it, my edits could have just been reverted. Please feel free to do so, I won't edit war about it. I am disappointed that my well-meaning efforts to make the sub-categorization better was so unwelcome, but I'll get over it. It's a big encyclopedia; I'll leave your pages be from now on. Raven1977 (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason we spent time discussing this here rather than individually reverting all your edits on sight, is that we always discuss changes of that order before making them to make sure there's a consensus. Raven1977, I'm sure your changes were well-meaning, but it would have been helpful if you had run your proposal past this project before making such wholescale changes to the articles we look after, or at least told us after the fact. It may look like a "mountain out of molehill" to you, but these can potentially affect our category navigation box, the cat listings on our project page, and bot runs as well. If nothing else, by coming here first you could have got some input about this and avoided a lot of extra work for all concerned. Now, I have already reverted the cat you put on Washington National Opera, because it's not in the state of Washington, it's in Washington, D.C. I'm rather confused about what was the state before the changes were made but I presume we had Category:Opera companies plus some random subcategories e.g. Category:American opera companies and Category:Chicago opera companies, Category:Italian opera companies (tagged under-populated), Category:Bulgarian opera companies etc. Right now, a lot of this stuff seems to be in limbo. There are empty categories, articles which now have a sub-category but aren't moved into it, new empty categories like Category:North American opera companies, categories with members but a redirect notice on top etc. etc. What do people here think we should do?

  1. Revert all the new categories?
  2. Keep all the new categories?
  3. Keep only some of them?

Whatever we decide, there's a fair amount of clean-up work needed and articles and categories that need to be double-checked. Voceditenore (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said somewhere above, I'm happy with sub-dividing companies by country. We can defend under-populated categories in the same way that Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven is currently being defended at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_12#Category:Operas_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven. We could create new (underpopulated!) categories for Moldovan, Netherlands (Dutch?), Estonian, Greek, Ukranian, Danish and NZ companies to mop up the companies currently not categorised by country. And I don't see why we shouldn't use American rather than USA - see, for example, Category:Opera singers by nationality.
I don't think that a lot of work would be involved in the above, and I'm happy to volunteer to do it (today) if there's a consensus. On Category:Italian opera companies, we're off into the perennial problem of distinguishing opera companies from opera houses, which could be why there don't seem to be any Belgian opera companies in WP! --GuillaumeTell 16:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. Categories make my head hurt. I agree with your proposals including "American" opera companies. Were you thinking of keeping the cats by US state? And yes, there is a perennial problem with the synonymous nature of house and company in many cases, including Italy. Could they have the opera house and opera company cats. I can't see any problems that would result from that and its sort of true that they are both. Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Categories are rather a librariany sort of thing. OK, I'll go ahead (in a couple of hours or so, after Rory Bremner and my dinner). I'm inclined to leave the New York State category and depopulate the others, unless anyone objects. Then I'll put up all the empty cats for Cfd. --GuillaumeTell 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good solution to me. Thanks GuillaumeTell for volunteering.Nrswanson (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Halfway through - will finish it off tomorrow. I'm inclined to leave California and perhaps Illinois subcats in situ. Comments and questions to my Talk page, please. --GuillaumeTell 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All done, and I'll list the empty categories at CFD when I get round to it. All American opera companies are back in Category:American opera companies except for those located in New York City and Chicago, which are the only sub-cats still in existence. On inspection, I found that the California companies were scattered all over the state and not (as I'd assumed) concentrated in San Francisco and/or Los Angeles. --GuillaumeTell 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. :-)Nrswanson (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_73&oldid=1190124606"