Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →


Contents

[edit] Personal interest in the list of missing names

I have been regularly updating the list of missing singers, and asking people to look up the German and French wikis (and notably my own contributions there) in order to find a fit start. Now Kleinzach has made some unpleasant allusion to my "personal interest" in the matter. In short : i have no connection to the music business or to any living or deceased singer or his/her relatives ; i am not paid to ask for articles or to write them ; i work anonymously on all three main Wikipedias and won't give my real name anytime soon. Assuming that i was (and still am) simply shocked by some gaps in this encyclopaedia without wanting to fill them up myself everywhere (working on fr: and de: is enough) was apparently beyond his current understanding. I will keep up updating the list whenever i think of some artist who deserves to have his article here. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, innit ? RCS 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have not suggested - at any point - that RCS has any connection to the music business or has an financial interest in it. What I have said is that WP is an encyclopedia not a magazine.
I don't think we need to prioritize German singers of the third quarter of the 20th century over other areas, although I encourage RCS to write articles about artists that he thinks are worthwhile. Listing names in the 'Can you help?' section doesn't achieve anything unless the articles are written, and it can be counter-productive if obscure names put off potential members rather than encourage them to join. - Kleinzach 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Undoubtely so. Now, obscurity from a scottish point of view can be clarity seen from somewhere else. The fact that people tend not to know any more who Ferdinand Frantz was doesn't mean that he was not, at some point in history, a favourite singer of small and unsignificant conductors like Wilhelm Furtwängler and Rudolf Kempe. I know that i do repeat myself, but since many of the names i added have been followed by articles (ex. Anna Tomowa-Sintow and Waechter, to take two recent examples) i can't be doing so much wrong. Anyway, german or not (and Maslennikov is not), those people worked with the greatest German and Austrian conductors and sung at the greatest German and Austrian opera houses and festivals. I thought that this, not some ethnic quota, was what really counts. RCS 15:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We are attempting a balanced coverage of four hundred years of opera in roughly three dozen odd countries. Any kind of parochialism, be it English, Scottish, American, French, German (or whatever), is counter-productive in that context. The WP policy on NPOV implies taking a neutral, international point of view.
Readers may get the impression that I think Wilhelm Furtwängler is an 'insignificant conductor'. Not so - in fact I have never referred to him on WP at all! - Kleinzach 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, oh dear. I see you are now: quote adding anothe of these obnoxious "german singers of the third quarter of the 20th century" unquote. I have not called any German singers 'obnoxious' - nor has anybody else. Was the intention to be sarcastic? - Kleinzach 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of important operas nominated for deletion

The List of important operas - on which many of us spent considerable time and effort - has been nominated by Mais oui! for deletion. He writes: This article appears to be a breach of WP:OR. There is no definition of "important" provided. If a good external source exists, per WP:CITE then there ought to be an article under that specific title. The whole article is unreferenced. -

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 23 number 150. - Kleinzach 20:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are getting sufficient support to save the page, but some people are suggesting it should be called the List of notable operas, because 'notable' is more Wikipedian or something. What do we think about this. - Kleinzach 13:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
(Copied from my AfD comment)
The problem with a name change is that every opera at Category:Operas (500+) is "notable" (a precondition for the individual article's existence). There is already such a list at Opera corpus. The purpose of the "important" list is to selectively pick operas that are of particular importance in the history of the art (rather than being notable for its occasional contemporary performance or being written by a famous composer). I think the current title makes sense. Fireplace 13:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that the decision has gone in our favour. Well argued, everybody! GuillaumeTell 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Melodrama

The Melodrama category now has has 14 miscellaneous items. This category seems to have originated in confusion between the Italian melodramma and the German melodram which is covered at the moment by the Melodrama article. What should we do with this category? De-populate it and put it up for deletion? - Kleinzach 14:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Depopulate. Marc Shepherd 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Completely delete it. It serves no known purpose. Inclusions seem totally random. --Folantin 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Good. I'd appreciate your help in de-populating it. Please support deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 24. - Kleinzach 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to online recordings?

Some websites or podcasts (e.g.) host free historical recordings of complete operas in .mp3 format (often very good ones too). Should we link to them in the External links sections? It would be a conceptual improvement over paper encyclopedias. I'm not entirely sure about whether the external sites have copyrights -- but even if it's murky, it's not hosted on wikipedia. I'm bringing this up here because it's a potentially widespread (albeit small) edit. Fireplace 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are actually some problems with linking to 1) possibly copyright material and 2) material which is in a proprietary format (such as MP3), and 3) Material which could conceivably be hosted on Wikipedia (if a 'pedian recorded it, as in my crap recording of Image:Stay, Prince and hear.ogg). According to WP:EL: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." It's an attractive idea, but I do think it is problematic. I don't know all the intricacies of this debate, I think if you want to learn more you could maybe ask User:Gmaxwell, who's more involved in that side of things. Mak (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Concern (1) resonates with me. I sent off an email to the owner of the archive linked above (by no means the only one out there -- just the one I'm most familiar with), who in response explained why most or all of the recordings there are either in the public domain (a recording in the EU over 50 years old, or a broadcast over 25) or in a gray area (live bootleg, no record of copyright). Even if something has slipped through, I'm quite sure this isn't a pirate site.
Regarding (2) and (3)... I feel stupid, I don't see the issues you're raising.
I'm not wed to this, but as I said, I think it's another way to differentiate ourselves from Grove, etc.Fireplace 00:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with the Parterre Box material. It dates from the 1940s through to recent performances. It is all live not studio. Some of it is evidently radio material but I guess that some of it is pirated (i.e. audience recorded) as well.
I see copyright from a traditional publishing point of view and find a lot of the WP angst about it over the top, though I recognize that the legal nuances are a bit different in the US from Europe. Nevertheless I have never heard of a case of indirect/second hand copyright violation ('knowlingly and intentionally directing . . .'). Can Universal get me extradited to the States if I write that pirate DVDs are sold in China? I don't think so. I certainly hope not. If Company A releases an interesting recording of an opera, I don't see how WP can be held responsible for checking whether or not they have broken any copyrights. - Kleinzach 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a web directory. External links should be kept to the bare minimum. If the material is in fact in the public domain (which I sincerely doubt much of it is) it should be downloaded to Wikipedia and inline linked. If it is not in the public domain, and Parterre Box hasn't gotten special permissions/rights, we should not link to it. Writing that pirate DVDs are sold in China is quite different from intentionally linking directly to material which is copyrighted. I really don't think bootlegs of performances are free of copyright protections either. I'm just very dubious, and while I agree that recordings are very nice and useful to have, we have to balance that with respect for copyright, and respect for what Wikipedia is, which is not a web directory. Mak (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right that the China example isn't the best analogy. The owner of Parterre Box has offered via email to go through the archives and pick out those recordings where the copyright status is reasonably clear -- I think that's a safe middle ground. As far as WP:NOT and external links... we regularly link to outside librettos, and links to complete, non-commercial recordings seem equally relevant. Fireplace 15:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mazeppa

I have largely finished this article - there were one or two points I'm not sure on, so I put hidden commentary in the article, but it's fairly strong, I think. And about five times longer. Adam Cuerden 18:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, but performance and recording histories would be nice, and some more on the actual "context" of the opera is essential (see The Fairy-Queen for the sort of thing that I mean here), as well as one or two sentences on the actual music itself (again cf. Fairy-Queen). Bravo on all the work so far, and yes, it's pretty decent compared to a whole lot of other articles. But finished? Just needs a little bit more. Good luck! Moreschi 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. The Programme provides information on early performances. I can use it!
I hope it's a good programme. I've used them before, and they can be annoyingly incomplete. Good luck! Best, Moreschi 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It has some good parts, but the synopsis is useless. For instance, it begins "A group of girls are singing and weaving garlands; then they sail away on the river. Kochubey's daughter Maria remains alone."
...I pretty much ignored it and wrote from memory, just checking locations and names off of it. Far too ham-handed, and carefully ignored any subtlety in the plot. But, having eseen it the day before, I could remember the plot pretty well. Adam Cuerden 12:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opera

I've now written 5 new paragraphs for this article recently and am now on something of a charge to get the article up to GA status. It is meant to be our most important "flagship" article, after all. Anyway, I'm coming here to ask for a bit of help and also to seek consensus for one or two changes that I think are necessary. In my opinion the article suffers from the following defects:

  • The lead is way too long. 5 paragraphs is the very maximum permitted. There are 7, and lengthy ones at that. IMO the last paragraph should either be moved right out of the lead or cut altogether. I'm a bit dubious about the idea of film scores being the descendants of melodrama; ballet scores perform a similar function to film scores as well. The whole lead is also a bit waffly; some more sharpness is required, I think.
  • "Baroque opera" needs expansion; and presumably we are talking about Italian baroque here; if so, this needs to be clarified in the title.
  • "German-languange opera" needs expansion.
  • Ditto, IMO, for Russian opera.
  • English-language opera and opera in the UK are absent altogether. Something needs to be provided.
  • "Verismo and after" requires a bit of bulking up.
  • I am distinctly dubious about the existence of the first bit the "Sociology of opera" section. Quite frankly, it reads like OR. Citation, please.
  • I think it preferable if the sound clips are spread throughout the article to the requisite themes and composers rather than lumped together in one disconnected section at the bottom. See the recently-promoted FA Gregorian Chant.
  • I think that a "Criticism" section needs to exist - for both historic and modern criticism.
  • Some more on the modern operatic world scene is essential IMO. One would rather think opera had died out 30 years ago in the article's current incarnation.
  • Inline citations will be needed at some point, though for GA they are not mandatory.

What does everybody think? I would like to establish consensus on what changes need to be made. Best to all, Moreschi 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the article is already altogether too long. Obviously a good introduction is needed, but I really think that, in this article, discussion of the History of Opera, and of different operatic periods (e.g. Baroque) and of different types of opera (e.g. Grand Opera) and different language styles (e.g. Russian opera), and any other subdivisions considered necessary, should be treated fairly briefly, with a reference to the relevant "Main article". See, for example, Philosophy, which refers to 14 "main articles" (and ought itself to be shorter and to refer to even more Main Articles! Maybe it will get there some day.).
The first step should be an agreement on an outline, and then hiving off relevant parts to "main articles", and then reworking of a) what remains of the Opera article (bearing in mind Wikipedia:Main article fixation!), and b) what the other main articles will contain, so as to reduce duplication to a minimum.
I really won't have time to do anything much before about 20 September when I come back from holiday, but I'll be happy to join in after that date. Hope this helps. GuillaumeTell 16:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the length of the article is completely fine, although I would agree than some sections do need to be 'bulked up'. And forgotten genre's (Ex. Russian Opera) addition to the article is surely needed.
I think the spreading out of sound clips is a good idea, but I think we would need more variety in sound clips in order for this to happen. For example, Baroque opera would have a sound clip, Mozart would have one, the Bel Canto would have one, etc.- basically, one sound clip per genre. This way, readers who are not clear about opera would have examples of what opera sounded like in each genre/time period. Right now, the media section is basically various segments of opera which are extremely popular. Of course, we can still have a section as such (Ex. popular segments of opera).
A criticism section might be good for variety as well.
I know GuillaumeTell's post above doesn't really agree with what I have posted, but this is what I think the article should look like.... Doublea 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I do actually agree with much of what GuillaumeTell says (in fact, there is currently a History of Opera child article gestating in my Workspace), but in my view the article has to grow before we cut it down to size. The main problem at the moment is one of balance. There are bits that desperately require cutting, and others that need to expand. In my view it would be easier to achieve a correct balance and then start shunting into subarticles, rather than create subarticles now when the article just isn't balanced. Anyway, a few more opinions would be nice so I've a got a clearer idea of what everyone wants... Best, Moreschi 12:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (oh, and yes, that's a good point about more variety of sound clips, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks also to Ssilvers for cutting down my overlong sentences in the Gluck paragraph.)

[edit] October's composer of the month?

I'd like to propose some nominees for October's composer of the month: Cilea, Giordano, Leoncavallo, Mascagni. ForDorothy 18:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Why not do them collectively in October under the heading "Verismo (excluding Puccini)", for example? (Though my vote might not count for much here as this is not my area of expertise and I doubt if I'll be able to contribute much. I'm still planning to do some more work on Gluck. August was a busy month unfortunately) --Folantin 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
A collective Verismo-without-Puccini month sounds fine to me. Best to all, Moreschi 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (any more opinions in the debate above...?)
I think a Verismo month is a good idea, although Puccini could do with some editing too. I added a Style and Politics component to this article a few months back, but it can still do with some needed expansion and editing.Doublea 01:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote for Leoncavallo and Mascagni by themselves as I think all "Verismo (excluding Puccini)" is a bit too much for one month. Kleinzach 13:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm, are we going to put up a new composer of the month? I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit new here and don't exactly know how it works. Heimstern Läufer 21:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created a stopgap version for Leoncavallo and Mascagni (I didn't know whether to add Giordano and Cilea). I know next to nothing about this area of opera. Anyone who does is free to do a better job of fixing it. At least it says "October" now. --Folantin 08:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Folantin. I'll see if I can improve what's there by filling in some titles of operas soon. Heimstern Läufer 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for taking this on. Unfortunately I haven't had much access during the last six weeks or so (I've been in Africa), and i'm delighted that you have kept it up. Best. Kleinzach 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done what I said I would. It looks to me like Leoncavallo and Mascagni alone will suffice for this month, so I suggest we hold off on Cilea and Giordano for now (perhaps we could add in some other lesser-known Italian composers and feature them another month soon? I also have a question: according to his article, Leoncavallo wrote operettas as well as operas; should the operettas be included also? I'm not sure of the scope of this project, so I thought I'd ask. Heimstern Läufer 22:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
We certainly cover operetta - as a genre of opera. It may be worth updating The opera corpus list if there are works that merit separate WP articles. Kleinzach 22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at List of opera houses in Italy

In working on adding or updating the various articles on Italian opera houses (just added Teatro Communale Alighieri in Ravenna), I came across the List of opera houses in Italy. Please take a look at it and my posting on the Talk page.

I'd like to see it removed, as much for its duplication of effort as anything. Please support this with your comments. Vivaverdi 23:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a redirect to List of opera houses#Italy would be more appropriate. You can PROD or AFD it, but I think the redirect is better. Best, Moreschi 09:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lully (and just about every other Baroque opera composer): A useful resource

If you can read French, there's loads of information here (including original cast lists): [1] The site owner says: "Toute reproduction du contenu de ce site est autorisée, sous réserve de l'indication de la provenance" (All reproduction of the content of this site is authorised, as long as an indication of its provenance is given). So it should be all right to use the info providing we give an external link to him at the bottom of each article. --Folantin 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Lully resources, the Jean-Baptiste Lully Collection is a good source of information for several of the operas, including detailed synopses in English (not to mention the full scores in pdf!); and this site here [2] (in French) has librettos (and probably heaps more, but I haven't had time to explore thoroughly). -- Rahelisdolentis 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of major opera composers - Please Vote.

I've listed a new candidate for deletion, and I'd like to get consensus as to whether he should be in the list. As to who this mystery composer is - well, you'll soon find out. Cheers, Moreschi 22:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added one for Addition as well. Adam Cuerden 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)