Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 46


Contents

English operas

In that case how about researching English works? There are many listed in The opera corpus. You'll find very few of them are illustrated. Also many need articles and even biographies (e.g. Edward Loder). Most opera project participants are interested in French, Italian and German works so it would be great if you could take over some of the English ones. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of WP:G&S, of course, and have also grabbed a few others - have a look at William Vincent Wallace for a couple illustrations I found (He's Irish, of course, but they premièred in London). And I have one of the Bohemian Girl that didn't scan well enough, so I was going to grab another photocopy to try with (though I haven't yet). Actually, how about Balfe and/or Wallace as a Composer of the Month? I bet I could get illustrations and reviews of all of Wallace's, and Balfe's from at least Geraldine on. [Why not before that? Because illustrated newspapers only really took off in Britain in the 1840s.] Vanished user talk 11:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, it might be worth starting articles on some more of Michael Balfe's operas if adequate sources exist. -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Right! Put 'em up for March, then, and I'll see what I can do =) Vanished user talk 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll list English operas as a candidate for the next composer(s) of the month. I've just been through The opera corpus, and these are the names I've come up with (18th as well as 19th century): Thomas Arne (1710-1778), Charles Dibdin (1745-1814), Stephen Storace (1763-1796), Julius Benedict (1804-1885), Michael Balfe (1808-1870), William Vincent Wallace (1812-1865), Edward Loder (1813-1865), Edward Jakobowski (1858 - 1927) and Alexander Mackenzie (1847-1935). Any others missing articles/biographies? -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[Reset indent] I'm presuming we're ignoring the really big names like Purcell, Sullivan, Britten, Adams, etc.

Okay. Alfred Cellier was pretty important - moreso in opera than MacKenzie, anyway, but WP:G&S started work on him, and the coverage is... reasonable. Don't have all his operas, but have all the main ones and a good chunk of the minor. Frederic Clay largely collaborated with Gilbert for his major works, so file him under WP:G&S.

Edward Solomon (The Nautch Girl, etc.) might be a very good choice. He's not very well covered as yet, but was undoubtedly important and popular.

However, there may be too many composers in the list. If we wanted to cut it down, I'd probably choose Arne, Wallace, Balfe, and Solomon. Vanished user talk 12:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, no big names and not people already covered like Cellier. If we are going to include 18th century composers, Storace would be essential - 8 red links in The opera corpus and fascinating historical background with Mozart, Sheridan etc. Solomon isn't covered at all in Grove or Oxford - not even a biography - and there are no red links in the opera corpus. On the other hand Loder is in, also Mackenzie - quite substantial articles in fact. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd. Mind you, Solomon died fairly young, and is probably considered operetta, which tends to get rather short shrift in opera reference sources. Not sure why MacKenzie is so prominent - he only wrote four operas, and one was an abject failure (though that's probably the librettist's fault - it was F. C. Burnand, and if you had read what I have, you'd know why that's a problem. Reviews of Burnand's works often include phrases like "Burnand seems unaware of his difficulties as a playwright, which seems odd, as he's had so many failures to teach him." - a paraphrase, but not that far off of the review of his "Proof Positive" I have floating around somewhere. Of course, MacKenzie was a very notable composer outside of opera, and the head of the Royal Academy of Music, so maybe it's like Beethoven (if on a much more minor scale) - shoehorned into the lists of the great opera composers because it'd be unthinkable to leave him out, particularly if the New Grove is based on the Old Grove. Vanished user talk 23:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, well, let's go with your list and see how we get on. I can only promise Balfe and Wallace for my own part, though. Vanished user talk 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but let's keep this in perspective - it hasn't even come up for discussion yet! -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

January Singer of the Month

It would be the male singers turn (December is 'New Music Divas'). Does anyone have any suggestions?

One that I thought might be useful (in preparation for February's 'Rossini Month') would be to have 3-5 male role creators in Rossini's operas (or ones that are/were particularly prominent Rossini singers). If there is any interest in this, I could put together some suggestions.

Another possibility, given that January is 'Gounod Month', would be French male singers of the mid to late 19th century. A quick glance at Gounod's operas throws up a lot of red links for the role creators. Best, Voceditenore 18:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have a non-historical group this time? For example red-linked, missing contemporary/recent bass-baritones: Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering, Robert Hale, James Morris + others? -- Kleinzach 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I note they're all prominent in Wagnerian repertoire, which at least gives them a 'theme'. Not particularly my cup of tea, but I'd be happy with that group, provided there's someone here who thinks they might be able to contribute to and/or create some of these articles (perhaps those who are also members of the Wagner Project?) Best, Voceditenore 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking for non-Wagnerians to add, but they seem less neglected. Anyway my intention was for it to be cross-rep! -- Kleinzach 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Here are some Italian bass-baritones: Wladimiro Ganzarolli, Sesto Bruscantini, Simone Alberghini, Paolo Montarsolo, Simone Alaimo, Claudio Desderi. -- Kleinzach 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to wrap this up, as I shall be off to deck the halls with boughs of holly soon. Can we narrow this down a bit? Otherwise it's a bit like a 'to do list', plus 10 singers is probably too many. I'd be inclined just to stick with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale or alternatively the Italian crowd (Wladimiro Ganzarolli, Sesto Bruscantini, etc). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Which group are more eminent? Maybe the Italians? Shall we go with them? -- Kleinzach (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It's more or less even, apart from Sesto Bruscantini, who was very eminent. However, I'm kind of inclined to go with the Wagner lot myself, if nothing else because the first group of SoM were Italian rep baritones, albeit from a different era. What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Going once, going twice... Any objections to going with Falk Struckmann, Günter von Kannen, Jan-Hendrik Rootering and Robert Hale as per my comment above? If not I'll put them to the January SoM notice. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. The list looks a bit weak with James Morris eliminated, how about adding some missing earlier post-war bass-baritones: Josef Herrmann, Alois Pernestorfer, and Otto Wiener - if they prove to be viable? -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak in what sense? Not prominent enough or too few? The orginal four look do-able from premlinary research online. Of the 3 further suggestions, there is a some stuff online available for Alois Pernerstorfer (Which is the correct spelling, by the way? Pernerstorfer or Pernestorfer? Pernerstorfer seems more common.). Virtually nothing on the other two, apart from mention in the casts of various recordings. None of the three have articles in the German Wikipedia, so no help there. None of them are in my Oxford Concise. I don't have access to the complete Grove, so don't know what's in there. Possibly some editors might have recording liner notes with some information about them? Anyhow, tempus fugit. So, I'll put 'em all up and we'll see what happens. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It's Pernerstorfer in Opera Grove (and in Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/2). All three are listed in the latter and have short articles in Grove, from which some stubs can be knocked up. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Leoncavallo's Are You There?

Just a stub at present, mainly from one source, but it's a start. Vanished user talk 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Leoncavallo actually involved in this? Michele Girardi lists it in Grove but doesn't mention it in the biography. -- Kleinzach 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
HAve a look at the review used for an article image. Some of his music was included, but it was evidently an expansion of a short little divertisement (that he indeed wrote) to two acts that didn't turn out very well. Vanished user talk 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Doubtless the music was by him - it's listed by Girardi. But my question about his involvement remains. Perhaps we should put this down as a composition rather than an opera? -- Kleinzach 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The bit in the original article about Leoncavallo's contribution being only "an expansion of some numbers he wrote for a musical sketch" was reported as a rumour going around after its flop in London, not as a fact. However, there is another article in the NY Times before the opera show opened, where the producer was quoted as saying: "Signor Leoncavallo was eager to write a farcical musical play to demonstrate that he could do it as well as grand opera." [1]. The work is mentioned in Leoncavallo's biography in the 1955 edition Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Page 137), and also in his biography in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (page 638). The Leoncavallo collection in the Locarno Library contains another review (described in the catalogue, not available online) from a French publication («Ménestrel», 15.11.1913):
Leggiamo che la prima rappresentazione assoluta dell'operetta di Leoncavallo Are you there?, scritta sul libretto di Albert de Courville, ha appena avuto luogo al teatro Prince of Wales di Londra [1.11.1913]. È stata ritirata dalle scene "per la poca soddisfazione che ha avuto il pubblico ad ascoltarla". [2]
The Locarno Library also has a condolence letter to Leoncavallo's widow from the co-author of the libretto/book of Are you there?, Albert de Courville. Best, Voceditenore 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Viking Guide lists it as an operetta. --GuillaumeTell 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As does The New Oxford Companion to Music (page 1058), The Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians above, and Leoncavallo's biography at the Festival Leoncavallo. [3]. A few others describe it as "a musical farce", including Michele Girardi in Puccini: His International Art (page 334). Voceditenore 12:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use Images Redux

I've been reading up on the English Wikipedia policy on fair use photos Wikipedia:Non-free content, and it appears that images which may still be in copyright, but are of dead people (and thus with no possibility of a free image being obtained) may still be used under 'fair use', provided a detailed description and 'Fair use rationale' is provided, and the other conditions for fair use are met, e.g. low resolution, previously published outside Wikipedia, figure is of historical importance, etc. Here's an example I just used for a portrait of Francesco Cilea. I'm wondering if the wording on the Opera Project page should be changed to:

Regrettably we are unable to use photos of living opera singers, composers etc. on a 'fair use' ('fair dealing') basis in their articles. 'Fair use' images may only be acceptable in articles dealing directly with publications, recordings etc. or in articles about subjects who are dead and therefore there is no possibility of providing a free equivalent. When it is necessary, detailed fair use rationales must be provided as well as a suitable copyright tag. Fair use images cannot be used for purely decorative purposes and they must be closely tied to the article text ( a good example is at Concerto delle donne). (Galleries, i.e. collections of fair use material, whether visual or audio, are not permitted under any circumstances.)

Or, should we let sleeping dogs lie? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, we can always use PD-US to get pre-1927 (I think) photos, so we're looking at a fairly narrow but highly significant range. Vanished user talk 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's pre-1923. But yes, the images involved are from a fairly narrow but highly significant range. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Your new version is fine of course. (Not relevant really but I think this has become so complicated that few people will want to upload historic images anyway.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll wait and see if anyone else objects, and then change the wording on the OP page as per above. Yes, it is a bit complicated to complete all the 'paperwork' for uploading under 'free-use', and possibly a lot of people won't bother. But such images can be for very useful for a lot of articles on prominent deceased singers and composers who did not achieve fame until after the 1923 cut-off and/or whose photographers don't meet the "dead for 70 years" criterion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Royal Danish Opera

I noticed that this link connects to the Royal Danish Theatre and the article states that this is the name of the company. The web site of the theatre though says it houses the The Royal Danish Opera and that this is the name of the company. Anyone know the truth?Nrswanson (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's also the Copenhagen Opera House. I'll make some enquiries. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes, Alas!

Alas, a new editor (started editing 3 weeks ago), Mickey_gfss2007, has taken it upon himself to start adding infoboxes to opera singers' articles. I reverted his edits and explained with a link in the edit summary. But he's reverted them all back. I left a message on his talk page too. But I suspect he's rather impervious. Take a look at the one for José Carreras. Groan!!! A complete distortion of his career and inaccurate to boot. Plus an invitation for the Catalan nationalists to start edit-warring too. Voceditenore (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't help wondering whether metadata Pigs are back On The Wing. Note from the Talk page of the above Mickey gfss2007 that we aren't the only people who're complaining about his/her edits! --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just undo all his infoboxes, (in Dennis O'Neill, José Cura, José Carreras‎, Luciano Pavarotti‎ and Plácido Domingo‎). - Jay (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh blimey. They've still got the "Related acts" parameter too. --Folantin (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe we need some help in Dennis O'Neill and its talkpage. Somebody insisted for the infobox to stay there and it has been many edit warring for the past 4 days. Dennis O'Neill is an opera singer, if we let the infobox stays in the article, how about other opera singers? See, if we cant protect one singer's article, how can we protect others someday. What do you guys think? - Jay (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Threats, bad language, insulting edit commentaries - maybe someone is having WP adjustment difficulties? Perhaps we need to keep an eye on this page from time to time? -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just written a reply to the latest barrage from one of the article's authors on its talk page, explaining the background to my initial edit, which I hope will calm things down a bit. I would strongly suggest that we just leave it for now. Heated discussions, accusations and counter-accusations, especially when they involve a relatively inexperienced editor, can be very counter-productive, and rightly or wrongly can reflect badly on the Opera Project as well. It's an isolated case, and the arguments for removal have been clearly laid out on the talk page as a permanent record. Fortunately, it appears that Mickey_gfss2007 who started it all (and has not participated on that article's talk page) has laid off further opera singer articles. Nevertheless, it's worth keeping his contributions page on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Maybe we should make Dennis O'Neill the Singer of the Month. (Just joking, at least until there is a calming of the waters, so to speak). By the way, the article's original author assumes I'm a man. A lot people do. Hmmmm.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Opera navigation boxes/Ordering of works

At the suggestion of my er, challenging collaborator I'm raising the issue here of whether operas in navigation box templates should be ordered by date of creation (that is, of completion), by premiere (with or without exceptions for posthumous premieres), or by publication (either date or opus number). There has been some arguing already here and here. It seems to me that, when known, creation and premiere dates could both be included without too much clutter, but that the former is more relevant in the ordering. Sparafucil (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We've just had an exhaustive discussion about these navigation boxes here. Four editors - including Sparafucil - expressed their opinions and we agreed on a format. I'm surprised that Sparafucil has reverted edits by Jay and myself to standardize the boxes as discussed. There are over 40 of these boxes and they should be consistent.
Moreover we have a long established policy of using chronological order by first performance. This applies not only to navigation boxes, but also to list articles and categories - it goes right across the whole project. (Of course, composition dates - when known - are important and should be recorded in the articles.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Except there is a lot of flexibility in thay. Die Feen is near the top of the Wagner box, not near the bottom. Personally I think there's more mileage in date of composition.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The policy always been applied in a common sense, pragmatic way. Unperformed operas have been listed according to available information. Juvenilia which may not have been staged until modern times hasn't been listed after mature works. On the other hand we don't normally have articles about marginal works like Die Hochzeit and Die Feen. Wagner is a special case. -- Kleinzach (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for an example of 'the policy' being applied even once. Besides Prokofiev, i've looked at Adams, Martinu, Meyerbeer, Janacek and Cui, all by composition, and only Halevy has a belated premiere date, that one posthumous. Sparafucil (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So Janacek (1854-1928) composed From the House of the Dead in 1930, did he? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I should have said a quick look, and the dates in Template:Janacek operas are a mixture of composition( Šárka, Osud) and premieres (The Beginning of a Romance, The Excursions of Mr. Brouček. Nevertheless, the ordering is by composition, as far as I can tell from the information in the articles themselves. Sparafucil (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sparafucil: "Adams, Martinu, Meyerbeer, Janacek and Cui, all by composition" . On the contrary Adams, Cui and Janacek (special exceptions as explained) are by performance date. Meyerbeer is by performance date (with one wrong date (typo?) now corrected). Martinu - a complicated case - had a number of wrong dates which i've now corrected. So none of Sparafucil's examples - except conceivably Martinu - support his case. (Hmm. I've just spent 20 minutes checking this out.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, as the creator of the first set of templates (including the Janacek but not including the Prokofiev, which predated my activities and, sort of, inspired them), I'll come clean about the easy-to-understand rules that I used. If the opera was first performed during the composer's lifetime or shortly after his/her death, I used the date of first performance. If the first performance was greatly after the composer's death, I used the date of composition as specified in the Viking Guide. This seems to me to be a sensible pragmatic approach that avoids agonising over works with complicated composition and/or performance history. I've gone into this on various occasions, such as when discussing the dates to be used for the List of important operas, here and here --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I propose we put the 'GuillaumeTell rules' on the Project page (see below). -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Synopses: discussion needed?

The question of synopses and how to write them keeps coming up - in relations to copyright, consistency, style, accuracy etc. Should we discuss them here? Some questions:

1. Should synopses be based on original libretti, or is it sufficient to make short summaries based on Grove, Oxford or other indirect sources?

2. I assume we all have collections of recordings. Should we have a system of volunteering individually to listen to (and read the libretti of) operas and then writing full, thoroughgoing descriptions of stories? (One opera might take up a whole evening or more - but it would be enjoyable!)

3. Should important arias be noted within the synopsis, or in a separate list?

Perhaps we can agree a project guideline for future reference/avoiding misunderstandings? -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As for number 3, I believe we all have agreed that arias should be incorporated within the synopsis. Currently most of them are in the separate sections - waiting to be "merged". But refer Turandot, Aida, Tosca and few others – those have been fully transferred into the synopsis and the separate sections (under header "Noted Arias") have been deleted. - Jay (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, 3 was settled around the time I joined. 2 sounds like a good enough idea: would someone with access to recordings like to tackle Jonny spielt auf and Karl V? As to 1, I have written one article Tarquin (opera) entirely on secondary sources, which seems justifiable in the case of a withdrawn/unpublished work (though it is now back in the rental catalogue). A question I ask myself is whether writing without the music is justifiable (What Price Confidence?, for which I've only seen short examples). Kleinzach seems to be taking issue with my work-in-progress on Zelmira; I'm grateful for his pointing out the apparent inconsistency with Grove but it seems to me that such differences should be duly noted rather than cause for deleting an accurate summary of an original source. Sparafucil (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The place for 'works in progress' is the sandbox. In any case I only deleted the inaccurate (and fairly unintelligible) four sentence synopsis after I had twice asked Sparafucil whether he was going to correct it and he declined. (That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me.) When I say the Zelmira synopsis was inaccurate, I am after all referring to an opera with a happy ending (according to Grove) which was bizarrely turned into a tragedy in the synopsis. I was hoping to avoid an argument about this and instead focus on underlying problems but since Zelmira has been mentioned, let's get the facts straight. -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at that synopsis. It appeared to be only a very partial bit of act I. The roles were also inaccurate - Zelmira had a son, not a daughter. In the interests of preserving the Opera Project's customary peace and harmony, I've taken the liberty of adding a new synopsis.;-) I summarized and then translated it from the Dizionario dell'Opera. See Talk:Zelmira for more. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for obviating that problem. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, Re 1. Synopses based on original libretti would be the ideal. However, as a shorter term solution, I think short summaries based on reliable and accurate indirect sources are fine - better something than nothing. By the way, I printed out the great history and synopsis of La straniera before the concert performance in London earlier this month. It was a godsend! Thanks to whoever wrote it.

Re 2. A system of volunteering individually to listen to and read the libretti of the operas and then write detailed synopses, seems fine for those who want to do it. Alas, I am not one of them. ;-)

Re 3. Like the others above, my impression was that we had already agreed that arias should ideally be incorporated into the synopsis. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.operatoday.com/content/2004/12/rossini_zelmira.php looks like an interesting take on it. Vanished user talk 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! I've added this last to the external links. In the interest of peace I should perhaps drop the matter, but if "4. verifiable information should be deleted if it is incomplete" becomes policy I see more havoc ahead. Sparafucil (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rome was not built in a day. Most of us have been working on this project for less than two years - in my case almost exactly two years. When I started coverage was rudimentary, articles poor and categorization inaccurate. We have come a long way. We now have 4,000 articles, most of them referenced, categorized, interlinked and reasonably accessible. Quite an achievement! But perhaps it's worth getting this in perspective and remembering that previous reference works like Grove took decades (not to mention lots of money) to develop.

Mediawiki is a fast publishing tool. However it fosters a kind of 'fill in the boxes' mentality that can lead to poor work. Perhaps it would be better to take things more slowly - and actually sit down and listen to the operas occasionally? Even if we each listened to only one opera a month that would be the basis for a solid improvement in the quality of the synopses.

Libretti are not perfect, often far from it. My experience in writing synopses is that in each opera there is always at least one action/event/coincidence/ambiguity that is tricky to explain and requires very careful formulating. If someone then tries to summarize that synopsis they inevitable make a mistake.

There's also the intellectual property aspect. Taking factual/historical/listed etc. information from reference works is normal research. This information can be taken apart, checked and edited fact by fact - no problem. Synopses are different. The shorter the version in Grove or Oxford the more obvious the source of its summary in WP - and the implication that editors have not accessed the original work.

Finally, regarding project harmony, we have a code that deplores edit warring. If we have disagreements, we should discuss them here before resorting to reverting. Please understand that good editing is often critical editing. That's par for the WP course.

If you got this far - thanks for reading! -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments Sparafucil wrote: "if 4. 'verifiable information should be deleted if it is incomplete' becomes policy I see more havoc ahead." Well, it really depends on what aspect of the article is incomplete, and the degree to which its incompleteness is signalled to the reader. For example, a role list which does not have the complete original cast in it is OK. There's no reason to hold back the names of some of the role creators because we don't know the names of all of them. Besides, this is clearly signalled by the layout. However, in the case of an incomplete synopsis it's much more tricky, and more likely to cause 'havoc' if it's left in. Let's take the original one that appeared in the Zelmira article. It covered only a fragment of Act I (albeit accurately), but there was no indication of that. To the reader, it gives a false impression of the opera's plot, and more importantly fails to let them know that it actually has a happy ending. If the synopsis was a work in progress, this should have been signalled by labelling the text as pertaining only to Act I, and explicitly stating that the coverage of even that act was "to be continued". But having said that, why put it in the article at all unless it is reasonably complete at least as far as the basic plot in concerned? 'Work in progress' is what a sandbox is for or a dedicated section on the talk page so that others can add to the synopsis until it is ready to be 'published'.
Kleinzach wrote: "Synopses are different. The shorter the version in Grove or Oxford the more obvious the source of its summary in WP - and the implication that editors have not accessed the original work." I would tend to agree with that. But I think we have to strike a balance here, especially for rarely performed works. For all we know, especially if the synopsis is extremely short, the reference book authors may themselves have got it from a secondary source rather than sitting down, reading and then synthesizing the complete libretto down to a few sentences. I don't have a problem with consulting secondary sources re the basic plot line of an opera, which I consider a fact, not someone's intellectual property. However, it's always a good idea to make a quick check against the libretto. For example, there was a (typo/error) in the Dizionario dell'Opera synopsis which said that Polidoro's army led the assault on the prison, when actually it was Prince Ilo's men. One way around the issue until a suitable synopsis can be written, is to at least give the reader a basic idea of the plot in the article's introduction, e.g. Amica. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a prudent approach is [one]. ;-) Btw, is there such a thing as an "incomplete section" template? Sparafucil 03:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Your addition to the plot summary of Miss Julie - (The preceding summarizes only the first half of the play.) is probably better than this template: {{Incomplete}}, which is certainly... er... eye-catching, but some might consider it graphic overkill. You could also lay out all the headers for the Acts and Scenes. When there's nothing under the header, it's obvious that the synopsis is incomplete. Here's an example I'm working on in my sandbox But notice that I said "sandbox". In my view, an opera synopsis is one case where the material should definitely not be published in the main article until the plot line is at least complete and divided into clearly labelled Acts (although some of the finer details and individual scenes can be added later). What's the rush when personal sandboxes are available? Best, Voceditenore 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the synopsis of The Fairy-Queen, I've always been quite pleased with the way I incorporated most of the arias into that particular synopsis.

I think the question of full synopses versus brief summaries largely (thought not entirely) boils down to questions of balance. If the rest of article can support a full synopsis, then go for it. If not, a brief summary may be better. Compare Agrippina (opera) with Prima la musica e poi le parole, for example. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 15:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Voceditenore asked: What's the rush when personal sandboxes are available? While sandboxes are almost indispensable for throughgoing revisions of busy articles, I'm not yet convinced they're the best way of dividing labor for Cotm: who would want to spend time on a red link to discover later that the effort was being duplicated? That said, "to be continued" and "incomplete" are useful tags; if we were quite sure which applied to Miss Julie someone just might go ahead and finish it. Sparafucil (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sparafucil: Do you have a sandbox? Do you know how to set one up? If not, we can do it for you. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a point about not duplicating work. But in addition to some kind of tag or notice, an incomplete synopsis in the namespace should at least have headings for each act, even if they are left blank. Otherwise, it can be very misleading to the readers. They have no idea which part of the synopsis is incomplete or which part of the opera the existing synopsis refers to. And after all, we're writing articles for readers, not just ourselves. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)