Talk:List of important opera companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Talk:List of important opera companies/Archive1

This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!

Contents 1 Addition of other opera companies, Nov 2006 2 Suggested change of title to 'List of important opera companies' 3 New title, new content, 10 April 2006 4 Exclusive vs. inclusive lists 5 Redundancy 6 List of opera festivals is now available, 23 April 2006 7 SDO

[edit] Addition of other opera companies, Nov 2006

Much thought and time went into compiling the list of 60 companies. (Please see "New Title, New Content, 10 April below)

Any additions or subtractions should be by the general agreement of and consulatation with the contributors to the the article from the Wiki Opera Group, and discussed ON THIS PAGE. The list was compiled by considering a variety of factors and, local "fans" of certain opera companies not withstanding (from his name, the Dallas contributor is clearly from there), an attempt at a balance has been made.

These same comments apply to the inclusion, then removal of the San Diego Opera earlier in the year.

Based on the criteria, Dallas Opera has yet to achieve the same level as the 60 companies included.

Vivaverdi 15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested change of title to 'List of important opera companies'

Let me state my agreemnent with VivaVerdi and Kleinzach that the word important better fits the character of this list than notable. Apologies for signing as Tom, but unable to bring up Buondelmonte with four tildes.

Tom

Changing the title to the above makes sense to me.

Vivaverdi 18:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve been reflecting on the title and I agree the best one would be ‘List of important opera companies’. This would be clearer than ‘notable’. (Every opera company in the world is ‘notable’ in some way or other). ‘Large’ or ‘largest’ would be confusing as it could refer to the number of employees or the budget or indeed the theatre. ‘Major’ comes close, but ‘important’ is better.

If everyone is now agreed, I will make the change later today. - Kleinzach 18:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now made the change. - Kleinzach 08:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also re-worded the first sentence, for the new title and to make it a bit clearer. Please say if you think it still needs improving! - Kleinzach 08:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New title, new content, 10 April 2006

This article now has a new title and new content, written by three members (Kleinzach, Viva Verdi and Buondelmonte) of the Opera Project.

As previously discussed here and agreed by all except one contributor, the previous list was a random collection of major, minor and obscure companies that followed no recognizable logic. It did not come from a reliable opera information source and was misleading and unhelpful.

The criteria we used to compile the present list were: (a) the present artistic standing of the company, (b) the number of its ensemble members, (c) the size of the budget, (d) the number of performances and seats sold each year, and also (e) its historical importance and associations with famous composers, singers and conductors.

The list is based on both print sources (noted at the foot of the article page) and online resources (company websites and databases) linked to the individual articles about the companies.

Following Wikipedia NPOV (neutral point of view) policy, we have not given preference to any particular country or continent in our selection.

Note: this is a list of the top 60 opera companies (not opera houses!) in the world. We hope contributors will respect the limit of 60 entries. If a new name is added, an old one should therefore come out. We hope that any changes will be noted and explained on this talk page! Please don't add your local company unless it really, genuinely, rates as one of the top 60 and you can identify a lesser organization to delete. Kleinzach 10:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on your new list. The new title was unnecessary though; the list is still a list of notable opera companies. Putting "60 important" makes the point of the list unnecessarily vague.--BaronLarf 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: rationale for this list should be clearly indicated in the actual article; that would make it truly comprehensive. Otherwise, it appears (though may not be) just as subjective as the prior list.

And as for Kleinzach's other commentary above, I've been clear from the get-go about the nature of the prior sourced list and – in absence of an alternate – reasons for placing it. Please refrain from arguably perjorative commentary hereafter. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not been involved in the earlier debate, so I don't want to necessarily take sides on why the new versus the old list; I only objected to the new title the page was given. Though I edited the page a couple times before I finally figured out what was really going on, the end result of my edits was:

• The article was moved back to its former title (see above rationale)
• the category was changed to "opera companies" (since the article is about opera companies, not opera in general)
• removed "see alsos" to city and global city (Would someone really gain more of an understanding of opera companies by going to an article on cities?) and
• removed the test "A separate list of opera festivals is in preparation." (Notes about development of articles, etc., do not belong in the article, only in talk pages.)

These changes chan be seen by looking at this diff --BaronLarf 15:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exclusive vs. inclusive lists

Some thought went into the title of List of 60 important opera companies.

We started off from an agreed position (shared by all involved) that this was - for the convenience of the readers - an exclusive, limited list, not an unlimited inclusive one.

After some research, we found that the upper limit of 60 worked best. We then decided to put this in the title to make it absolutely clear what we had compiled. I don't see how the number 60 can hardly be termed vague.

BaronLarf then turned the title into an inclusive List of opera companies which is fine if we want to change the intention of the article. After that it was turned back into the former List of notable opera companies. I'd suggest that this is vague and re-opens the pedantic 'can of worms' (fully documented on this page) about what should or should not be included. What do other people think?

Kleinzach 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the group compiling this new list, I'd support Kleinzach above.

If the list simply keeps getting added to without consensus, where does "Notable" stop? The list could go on for ever.

We carefully sifted through all the claims made by each company to come up with this managable number. Vivaverdi 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The current title is fine: noting 60 in the article title is improper. I'd include a number if it was an authoritative, sourced list so named (e.g., AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains, et al.). This is not. Include this proviso in the lead/intro for the list instead; otherwise, see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there will always be a can of worms when it comes to selective lists; this can be limited by coming to a compromise (like what seems to have been done here) and collectively enforcing the agreed-upon resolution. Simply calling something "The top 60" won't take away the fact that someone else might come along and say that another company deserves to be in that list instead of another one.

If, though, there's consensus that the title should be "List of largest opera companies" or "List of major opera companies", I would have no problem moving the article to that name instead.

And I agree that there needs to be a clear statement of the outside criteria involved in making this list, if only so that the list can continue to be updated when companies merge, etc. Otherwise the list would seem to come close to original research (a no-no). --BaronLarf 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'm delighted to see 60 is back in the first sentence. We are closer to a compromise. My recommendation is 'List of important opera houses'. 'Largest' is problematic in various ways. 'Important' is, in my opinion, stronger than 'major' or 'notable'. - Kleinzach 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is sufficient. In numerous contexts, and IMO this one, 'notable' and 'important' are synonyms so a move to to the latter would be ineffectual. Otherwise, I agree that 'major' and 'largest' are problematic given the topic matter of this list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at a thesaurus you will find that synonyms of notable include words like celebrated, famed, famous, illustrious, noted, noteworthy, renowned. Not the meaning we want here. The sense we want to convey here is big, powerful, prestigious, influential etc. hence important is appropriate IMO. - Kleinzach 18:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we? Uh, my Concise Oxford Thesaurus says precisely what is indicated above: important is a synonym for notable ... and in the same (2nd) sense as some other words indicated above (prestigious, influential). I'm unsure if this discussion can proceed further and hence withdraw, but I defer to my prior comments. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

I have taken out the redundant first sentence (This is a list of notable opera companies) following List of notable opera companies. I trust that's OK with everybody! - Kleinzach 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the prior rendition, which is actually supported in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, e.g., reiteration. Ideally, notions should be consolidated into a single sentence and relevant terms emboldened and wikified, but the MoS discourages this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to clarify what specifically you referring to in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You should explain why you support redundant repetition against common sense, and in contrast to the usage on other Wikipedia pages. The entry on Joe Bloggs (or whoever) does not start This is about Joe Bloggs, the article on Opera does not start This is about opera, the List of famous operas does not start This is a list of famous operas. etc. Surely you know this? - Kleinzach 10:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Before gibbering, please familiarise yourself with the MoS regarding titles and other items regarding style in Wp. I've tweaked the lead additionally. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The MoS regarding titles reference does not support simple repetition/redundancy. It recommends using the title (normally short) as the subject of the first sentence and not as the predicate, e.g. Enrico Caruso was a tenor.

Here is the text: "If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style".

My edit was correct, not merely from the point of view of good English, and common sense, but also from the point of view of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

The word gibbering is offensive. Show respect! I have written substantially to this article. - Kleinzach 11:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. The example cited is proof-positive of reiteration and the current edition: "This Manual of Style is a style guide". Your edit didn't embolden any text and, thus, was incorrect from a number of viewpoints. Otherwise, I defer to my prior comments ... and perhaps you should reflect on your prior perjorative commentary before pointing the finger in response. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You have once again changed the text and punctuation of the introduction. You seem to change it every hour. What is the point of arguing for a given form and then re-editing it? Please let us know when you have finished and we can then look at it again. Oh, and by the way, the use of bold is not an issue - but I think you understand that at least, even if you don't recognize concepts like subject and predicate. - Kleinzach 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, emboldending text is an issue: when doing so in the first sentence, the MoS discourages wikifying those terms too (i.e., bold + wky = no-no). Consequently, that changes the way the introduction should be rendered ... and hence the current state (with appropriate syntax). To embolden and wikify text is inconsistent with the MoS. The alternative (or similar) seems cumbersome:

This list of notable opera companies, totalling sixty permanent (opera companies/ones) in all, has been compiled based on various criteria.

Selected seems wrong to me.

Regarding your other ... comments – this is a wiki: anyone can edit and it's in a constant state of flux. I neither require your permission nor need to inform you of when I'll be making edits or when they cease. Deal with it. And, yet again, you cry foul and then you go right ahead and insinuate a perjorative stance ... wholly counterproductive. If you cannot judiciously apply English in this forum, perhaps you should refrain from doing so and remain silent. Apropos: in future, your commentaries will be accorded due attention by me and dealt with appropriately. Understand? End communication. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to play nice, everyone. WP:CIVIL. It might be a good idea for everyone to just take a break from this article for a day or to to get some perspective. Cheers --BaronLarf 21:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of opera festivals is now available, 23 April 2006

The new list of notable opera companies is deliberately designed to reflect only full time companies. We are working on the opera festivals list.

Vivaverdi 15:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The List of opera festivals is now available. Vivaverdi 22:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SDO

I'm adding San Diego Opera, because it is a reputable opera company and is ranked by Opera America as one of the top 10 opera companies in the United States [1]. SDO generally puts on five operas per year and hires opera singers from around the world, many of whom are quite well-known (such as Renee Fleming, Richard Leech, and even Luciano Pavarotti). I've found that the company also has a knack for identifying rising stars in the opera world (such as Marina Domashenko). More information can be found at the San Diego Opera website. I will create the article for San Diego Opera in the near future. --Muugokszhiion 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know the standard in San Diego is high, and it will be good to have a full article on the company, however just 5 operas a year would make it one of the smallest company listed. How does it compare to Seattle or the Welsh National Opera, I wonder? If San Diego is in, maybe we should take another company out to keep the number to 60? - Kleinzach 10:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Muugokszhiion for some rationale on San Diego and the offer to write an article. However, looking at Renee Fleming's appearances with the SDO, I find nothing after her Rusalka in January 1995 at a time when was a relatively unknown singer. Kudos to SDO for hiring her then, but so did the Virginia Opera and the Washington Concert Opera.

It is true that the SDO does hire rising stars (even established ones like Joan Sutherland whom I saw in the US premiere production of Verdi's I masnadieri), and before he left SDO after nearly bankrupting the company in the mid-1980s, Tito Capobianco produced some innovative Early-and-Late Verdi pairings.

But, in my view, all this does not make an "important" company when considered on a world scale. Seattle, while narrowly qualifying for the 60, has the advantage of an innovative and talented director in Speight Jenkins and a very well-known Ring cycle with major international singers.

Vivaverdi 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly familiar with this company as I published an interview with the general manager Ian Campbell on my website. However I agree with Vivaverdi that it may not meet our criteria in this case, though it should be on other lists and definitely deserves an article. Would Muugokszhiion mind if we take it off this list? - Kleinzach 10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I do think it is an important opera company and deserves some sort of mention, I will understand if you don't think it meets the criteria for this particular list. I'll still work to get the San Diego Opera article up and running. --Muugokszhiion 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. I have taken San Diego out of this list, but we certainly still need a good article on the house and it should be included in other, more inclusive, lists. Regards - Kleinzach 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)