Talk:The Merry Widow

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.

Contents

[edit] Role names

This article (like all those in opera articles on Wikipedia that I have seen) gives the (proper name) role names in the original form. Figaro has changed the name of the main character Hanna to Anna. After writing to him I have reverted this article to the original version. I trust that is acceptable to everybody.

I actually know this operetta well and I have never known the main character (even in an English version) called Anna. Moreover the New Grove Dictionary of Opera gives 'Hanna'. Kleinzach 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Anna" is the widow's name in most English translations for the Glocken Verlag version of the operetta. For instance, both of the (United Kingdom) English translations for the Glocken Verlag version — libretto by Phil Park – and libretto by Christopher Hassail — have "Anna" as the widow's name. (I own copies of both Phil Park's libretto and Christopher Hassail's libretto, so I have quoted these libretti faithfully.)
I have attended several English-language stage performances of "The Merry Widow", all of which have had "Anna" as the name of the widow (with "Anna" being the widow's name in the printed programmes for the performances).
Also, the DVD of the 2001 production of the operetta by the San Franciso Opera, with Yvonne Kenny as the widow, had "Anna" as the name of the widow. Figaro 03:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up message

Pigsonthewing attached a clean-up message to this article on 1 November, 2005, without explaining what he thought needed to be cleaned up. Since I see nothing wrong with the article, I have removed the clean-up message. If Pigsonthewing (or anybody else) decides to reattach a clean-up message in future, then the least that they should do is to write to the Talk page to explain why they feel that the article needs to be cleaned up. Figaro 10:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has re-tagged the article for clean-up, still without bothering to justify himself. If there is no justification given in the next 24 hours, then I will remove the tag again. Any further such tagging without explanation can only be seen as malicious. Figaro 10:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Any further such tagging without explanation can only be seen as malicious: That's utterly ridiculous. Note the commented out pidgeon-English translation; improper capitalisation; lack of linking; poor punctuation Andy Mabbett 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So what. You still haven't specified what is wrong with what is still visible. Figaro 10:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Try re-reading the above - and being less hostile. Andy Mabbett 11:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Then delete the commented out bit, and remove the tag. Figaro 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Try re-reading the above. Andy Mabbett 11:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It looks as though Nunh-huh has done it for you. I have to presume that you are too stubborn to able to recognize that your tagging the article with the clean-up was always the wrong thing to do, and that your judgement was mistaken throughout. Figaro 12:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It is you who is parading your stubborness and mistaken judgement. Try re-reading the above - and being less hostile. Andy Mabbett 12:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications required

  • If the 1907 edition is the original, what does "altered character and place-names" mean? Altered from what?
  • What is the purpose of "apparently"? If the writer is not sure of his/her facts, they should not be here.
  • What does "the voices left as found on the Spanish version of this

entry" mean?

  • What does the "might" in "In the 1907 edition, Camille might sing a high C" mean? Does she sing a high C or doesn't she?
  • What does "a few exchanges of the dotted quarter - 16th note phrases, and unison statements together" mean? Is the dash meant to be a hyphen linking "dotted quarter" and "16th note"? If so, there should be no spaces on either side, otherwise it reads as "a few exchanges of the dotted quarter", which makes no sense to me. JackofOz 12:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems to have escaped your attention that Camille is male, not a female. Figaro 12:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Good to see you're addressing the important issues in Jack's post. Please try to be less hostile. Andy Mabbett
Quite. Andy Mabbett 12:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
You could try being a little less obsessive about the operatta and the article. Figaro 12:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Please try to be less hostile. Andy Mabbett 13:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Nunh-huh for making the required changes. JackofOz 01:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German title

Why is the page called "Die Lustige Witwe" rather than "The Merry Widow"? This is English Wiki. No English speaker calls it by its German title. Most English speakers would have no idea what you were talking about if you mentioned "Die Lustige Witwe" to them. It's not the same as, say, "Il Trovatore", because we always use the Italian title for that opera. JackofOz 01:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the title of the article for the English Wiki should be "The Merry Widow".
When the article was created by Deb on 28 March 2004 with the title "The Merry Widow". However, just over a year later, on 31 March 2005, the title was changed by BaronLarf to its present title of "Die Lustige Witwe".
In a similar way, the Constellation "The Southern Cross" is listed in the English Wiki under the title of "Crux", the Latin name for "Cross". Figaro 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The ballet version of the story is known as "The Merry Widow", since it was choreographed for the Australian Ballet, and in Australia, the opera is also known as "The Merry Widow". Figaro 06:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
If there's no objection voiced here, I'll move this to the requested title soon. Since it's usually presented in English in English speaking countries, that makes sense. (Anyone have a (free) picture of the foundational garment called the "merry widow"? Preferably one being worn in a production of the Merry Widow. We could use a picture here.... - Nunh-huh 00:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no objections (obviously). JackofOz 04:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
And I also have no objections. Figaro 22:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have done the deed. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations! JackofOz 01:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table

In addition to the points I have previously raised, the table is a mess. Andy Mabbett 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Specify which points you have raised that have not been addressed. Specify what it is you would like changed in the table. "It's a mess" is not specific. - Nunh-huh 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
If you can't see what's wrong, or don't know how to fix it, leave the page tagged so that someone who does and can, can fix it. Your continued removal of the tag(s), without remedying the problems, is beginning to look malicious. Andy Mabbett 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you want us to take your word that there's something wrong, then, without you bothering to identify it? That's not what a clean-up tag is for. It's not a substitute for discussion.- Nunh-huh 12:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No: I've identified what's worng and you've admitted that you don't recoognise it. My previous comment still applies; to you and Figaro. Andy Mabbett 12:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
You've stated your opinion that something is wrong. You haven't specified what that might be. - Nunh-huh 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I regret that I have no further tools to deal with your apparent lack of comprehension. Andy Mabbett 13:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
We all regret that words seem to have failed you. Unfortunately, claiming there is a problem and then refusing to explain what it is is not going to get anything "cleaned up". - Nunh-huh 13:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy, either describe exactly why you feel the table is a mess, or leave the tags off. If you can't explain what needs to be cleaned up, then there's nothing to clean up. android79 13:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It was visually a mess; but, despite his protestations not to understand that, NN has now mostly fixed that. How odd. Nonetheless, the capitalisation is still bad, and the headings meaningless. BTW, please don't use deprecated HTML in your sig - it breaks WP. Andy Mabbett 16:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, odd is exactly how I'd describe this exchange. You appear to know plenty about HTML – enough to tell me not to use deprecated tags in my sig – yet were unwilling to fix the markup on the table. If the capitalization and headings are bad, these are certainly things you can fix. Neither requires subject matter knowledge nor technical knowledge. You've spent more time and energy complaining about the formatting than it would have taken to fix it yourself. android79 16:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I refer you to my earlier answer to yoru question, elsewhere. You still have deprecated HTML in your sig - it atill breaks WP.
Your earlier answer didn't answer anything. If you lack the technical ability to "fix" whatever was "broken" with the table, a more descriptive notion than "visually a mess" would have been more helpful than repeated re-addition of the cleanup tag. Fortunately, Nunh-huh was somehow able to deduce what you saw wrong with it and fix it.
As for my sig, it doesn't appear to be "breaking" Wikipedia at the moment, and I've been using various versions of this same sig with the same tags for months without complaint. I'll look into it, though. android79 17:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table question

In the Glocken name column, I would have thought that the Baron's wife could still be indentified as Valencienne, and the widow's swain could be identified as Count Danilo (or Count Danilo Danilovotsch). Am I mistaken in this assumption? Figaro 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, works for me. - Nunh-huh 13:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Figaro 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tags, again

The only remaining objections – near as I can tell – from Andy were: capitalization, headings, and lack of internal links. I could find no problems with the capitalization or headings, but I do agree that the article needs more wikilinks, so I replaced {{cleanup}} and {{confusing}} with {{wikify}}. Andy, if you see further problems with formatting or style, please fix them yourself rather than reapplying the tags, or describe them thoroughly here so they can be addressed. android79 13:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why does the article need more wikilinks? We shouldn't add them just to make words blue. What termss do you think need linking to? - Nunh-huh 18:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The Versions section could use some more context in general, context that could be provided by wikilinks to other articles. Readers unfamiliar to some musical jargon (or those that just need a reminder, like me) would be aided by links to, say, Waltz or whatever article might describe what being a "whole-tone lower" means. At any rate, that section would benefit from expansion and explanation.
Really, though, the tag was intended as a compromise, a compromise that obviously isn't working. I don't care whether it stays or goes, since in practice, the wikify tag is largely useless. android79 19:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand the tag as a temporary appeasement to the intractible. I agree with you that it's silly here, my note was just to point out that the tag only makes sense in an article which is essentially plain-text with no wiki markup. As used in this article it simply means "I'm too lazy to add brackets around the words I want explained, and too peevish to explain which words they might be". We shouldn't encourage these kinds of petulant guessing-games. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy with "Wikifi" instead of "cleanup", now that most of the cleaning-up has been done, but the article is still "confusing", in that it uses terms without defining them. I have already cited an example. Andy Mabbett 14:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
When most people do not comment on whether or not they find an article confusing, an application of Occam's Razor tells us that it is more likely that the reason is because they find the article comprehensible. People who find the article confusing are much more likely to comment on the fact than those who do not, and who therefore have no reason to change the status quo. So the lack of comment can be used as justification to remove a {{confusing}} tag, and the lack of comment cannot be used as justification to put it back. Figaro 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Your assertions are unfounded. Andy Mabbett 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
By this, I have to presume that you assume that most people who find an article confusing are not actually going to bring it to people's attention. I differ from that position. I would find that behaviour very strange indeed. If you find certain terms unfathomable ("paramour"? "factotum"?), you should try checking a dictionary for their meaning. Figaro 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to presume Actually, you don't have to. It's your choice. Andy Mabbett 17:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
People who understand an article are not going to make a comment that they understand the article unless there is a specific reason for them to make such a statement (such as an inquiry into their level of understanding). This means that the absence of people stating that they understand the article is not indicative of there being no such people. On the other hand, people who don't understand an article have an automatic reason for explicitly commenting on that fact. Usually, they ask for help on the discussion page, rather than foisting an unnecessary cleanup tag on the article. Figaro 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as your statement that "most of the cleaning-up has been done" goes, recall that you stated that there was something wrong with the capitalization. The capitalization has been hardly touched, because there was never really anything wrong with it in the first place, in spite of your claims to the contrary. Figaro 04:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Edit War

It's been entered as evidence on POTWs Request for Arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence. Please let me know if any more problems arise. Karmafist 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ballet title

For some reason, Pigsonthewing has an aversion to seeing the words ""The Merry Widow" ballet" all in one place, and keeps deleting the title of the ballet in the link to The Merry Widow (ballet) as a result. The ballet should be referred to as ""The Merry Widow" ballet" in order to distinguish it from the operetta of the same name. Pigsonthewing has already stated that he does not know about the operetaa, and I daresay that he knows nothing about the ballet either. And in spite of his admitted ignorance of the operetta, he is still insisting that we MUST do things his way. There is no reason for him to still be involving himself in the article for the operetta in general, or the section on the ballet in particular, and one has to wonder about his motivation in continuing to interefere in an article when he obviously has no interest in the subject matter. He has not even made one constructive contribution to the article, and his interference serves only to delay constructive contributions from other people since they are spending valuable time undoing his unnecessary edits. It is also frustrating to have Pigsonthewing come in and undo the work I have been putting into the article, including constructive edits which I have managed to make in times between countering his interference. Figaro 12:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

An idea for compromise. I agree with POTW that duplication between the operetta and ballet articles should be kept to a minimum. All the fine detail ought to go in the ballet article, leaving a useful summary in the main article. How about the following? 86.139.143.243 12:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
See The Merry Widow (ballet) for fuller details
Australian ballet star Sir Robert Helpmann obtained permission from the Franz Léhar Estate to create a ballet based on the operetta for the Australian Ballet, also creating its scenario and staging. It premiered on 13 November 1975 at the Palais Theatre in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Like the operetta, it has proven to be very popular, and has been one of the Australian Ballet's most successful productions as well as being adopted as part of the repertoire of many other ballet companies.
That's too wordy, when we link to a separate article on the ballet (which, incidentally, Figaro is reverting with spurious allegations of vandalism). Andy Mabbett 13:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
How about? 86.139.143.243 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
See The Merry Widow (ballet) for fuller details
Australian ballet star Sir Robert Helpmann created a ballet version for the Australian Ballet. It premiered in 1975, and has since become a popular part of the repertoire of the Australian Ballet and many other ballet companies.
It is interesting that the people commenting here are people who do not know the subject matter (Pigsonthewing), or who dislike the operetta (an anonymous poster from domain btcentralplus.com who goes under the ID of 86.139.143.243).
With respect to their complaints that operetta and ballet information is 'duplicated', there is a good reason for this. The operetta and ballet articles are **2 separate articles** — the two articles are not inseperably linked together. Therefore, the so-called duplication issue does not arise. People who access the operetta article do not automatically go to the article about the ballet - and vice-versa. The so-called duplicated text therefore is useful to both the operetta article and ballet article, as indivual articles within their own right. Figaro 01:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I confess I was not aware of this discussion before I made my very recent edit. But I stand by it. It's very clear from the respective contexts that the operetta is an operetta, and the ballet is a ballet (of the same name). Except where it really could be ambiguous, it's really not necessary to refer to "The Merry Widow" ballet"" in an article called "The Merry Widow (ballet)". JackofOz 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
But it is necessary to refer to it as such in an article about the operetta. Figaro 02:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
That may well be true, depending on the context. And vice-versa too, of course. JackofOz 02:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

or who dislike the operetta Yes, I do. But I like opera in general. Personally, this is mainly exasperation at what appears to be an issue of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles by editors who don't appreciate that this is an encyclopedia for general readership. It's a principle here not to duplicate material. You've got two articles about related topics. It makes sense that each contains detailed information only about itself, with basic reference and hyperlink to the other. 86.139.143.243 03:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

an issue of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles... That, and the various opinions and falsehoods which Figaro presents here as facts. Andy Mabbett 11:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not claim ownership of articles, nor have I ever done so.
Andy Mabbett has a history of inappropriate edits on these pages (e.g. when he was continually adding spurious cleanup and confusing tags to the operetta article, and refusing, point blank to explain explicitly what he found wrong with it). His refusal to admit his obvious faults has led him to vilify those who try to put him right. One good example of a spurious cleanup tag administered by Andy Mabbett was on the article on Electromagnetism 1 where he made the claim that the caption on the picture on that page was not in English. Contrary to his claim, the caption on the picture when he added that tag was in English, except for one minor grammatical error, so he lied when he put the tag on that page. As far as identical information on different pages is concerned, there is nothing wrong with that happening. They are, after all, separate articles, and the information may be pertinent to both articles. There are certainly a number of examples of this happening in Wikipedia, just as there are in printed encyclopedias. Figaro 17:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I daresay neither of you (Figaro & Pigsonthewing) are entirely satisfied with the current version (here or on the ballet version). Unfortunately, I can't think of any ways to reword some of these items that keep getting edited back and forth... and I'm not sure the changes I made so far really resolve the issues behind them.

Figaro, as I understand it Pigsonthewing's issues are primarily matters of textual style and detail. So, where you want to spell out 'The Merry Widow BALLET' to specify that as its proper name his objection (if I understand correctly) is not with how the name is presented, but with repetition of this phrase especially in close proximity to other occurences. Finding ways to space repetitions out or use other terms when referring to the same thing in close proximity should close alot of his objections.

Pigsonthewing, I'm going to make a change on the external links section... but I'm not sure if it will address your concern. I don't know if you are trying to reduce space taken up, avoid repetition of the site name, or something else. Thus, the change I'm going to make may resolve your issue (while keeping both links as I believe is Figaro's goal) or not.

I KNOW it's practically insane to try to start talking this out at THIS stage of events (and I can't stand discussion pages), but I don't see another solution. If I may suggest... if both of you list the reasons why you want to change various things we may be able to find ways to do things that both of you can live with.

To start with... what's the deal on the external link? Figaro, why do you prefer "Josef Weinberger: Die Lustige Witwe - (The Merry Widow)" and Pigsonthewing why "Josef Weinberger: Die Lustige Witwe Centenary". I have no idea if there is any way to resolve that dispute because I don't understand the goal on either side. Same for any other issues which you don't like about the current version. Issues on the page(s)... not the other editors. :] --CBDunkerson 11:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no need to link to two pages of the cited reference; the first already links to the second; it's one article not two; and we don't link to part 3. Furthermore, "part 1" (et al) is not meaningful link text. As to the Weinberger link, the site commemorates the Centenary; and the translation of the name is already in our article, near the top. There is no need to refer to "the Merry Widow Ballet", when it's already clear that it's a ballet, called "the Merry Widow", which is being discussed. Andy Mabbett 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind either way, regarding the references. Figaro 12:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wendy Wasserstein Translation?

I was surprised to find no mention of Wendy Wasserstein's 2001 English translation. I'd write a few words about it, except that I don't know this operetta well enough to be able to tell which double entendres and contemporary references (e.g. Camille to Valencienne: "Sound's like you're running a mutual fund!") are Wasserstein's, which were supplied by the director of the production I was involved with (as a violinist in the orchestra), and which are in the original. Besides, you folks seem to be a tad touchy about edits!

Anyway, I think it should at least be mentioned, whatever you think of it.

[edit] Clothing

My understanding is that a merry widow is also a strapless, usually black, corset. Does this name have any historical connection to the operetta? - Smerdis of Tlön 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

According to us, it was designed for the 1952 film based on the operetta. - Nunh-huh 00:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] parody of theme in Shost. 7

Hello, I had originally posted this question at Talk:Symphony No. 7 (Shostakovich), but I thought that it would be pertinent here as well.

The liner notes to Kurt Masur's recording of the symphony say that its third movement has a parody of "Da geh' ich zu Maxim" from The Merry Widow. I'm not familiar with either work, but perhaps there is someone who is familiar with both works and could confirm that assertion, and maybe add this to both articles. Thank you. --Kyoko 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)