Talk:Opera house

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Music venues, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Music venues on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Name change and split into two articles

Increaingly, I've come to the conclusion that the only way to have all the opera houses in some sort of list (since people remove individual houses and put them in the country list) is to change this to List of opera houses.

There is a List of important opera companies (60 regarded as significnt, so don't believe that we need another one), but I think you're right in suggesting that Opera house could be it's own article.

Vivaverdi 23:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that List of opera houses would probably be more consistent with other articles. - Kleinzach 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By agreement, this is now simply "Opera house" and a separate List of opera houses has been created. Vivaverdi 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This page now looks rather odd. It looked even odder before I removed the Note that I wrote and have now put on the List page. Do the References really belong here as well as there, where I see they've been copied? NB there are lots of pages that link to this one. Is anyone planning to improve this page before it gets listed for deletion? --GuillaumeTell 21:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will be OK if we treat it as an opera terminology article. Many of these are short anyway. I don't see any danger of it getting deleted. It could be developed with information about architecture and design. (The German page is a kind of combination of both types of article). BTW, I have updated the list infobox. - Kleinzach 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine. However, I've just noticed that the move has created a double redirect. Opera House, which is used in a number of articles, dumps you at "Opera houses", from where you don't get forwarded to Opera house. I'm not clear what ought to be done about this, though I've fixed one or two individual occurrences - is it just redirecting from Opera House straight to Opera house? --GuillaumeTell 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this. - Kleinzach 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it. Thanks. --GuillaumeTell 23:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki-ing (if that's a word...) of all this. I'm afraid that I'm (mostly) clueless on this stuff...

Vivaverdi 02:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But there;'s no reason not to keep the refeences, since all refer to specific opera houses. Certainly, the article now needs some expansion to deal with the evolution of the "house" per se. That is something I'd be willing to tackle, unless anyone else wants to leap in... (It's a busy summer at the Santa Fe Opera).

Vivaverdi 02:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

There is a good article on 'Theatre architecture' by Edward Langhans in Grove. This is a subject that really would benefit from diagrams and photos. Great if you can take it on. Fascinating subject. - Kleinzach 09:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG

Image:Palais Garnier -Outside.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)