Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:09, 8 July 2013

Operatic Did you know ...

• ... that the Chilcott Award of the Royal Philharmonic Society is named for Susan Chilcott, born 8 July 1963, who interpreted Ellen Orford in Britten's Peter Grimes at La Monnaie?

• ... that Elena Obraztsova, born 7 July 1939, played the title role of Carmen opposite Plácido Domingo in Franco Zeffirelli's television production?

• ... that Brigitte Fassbaender, born 3 July 1939, performed Brangäne in a recording of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde conducted by Carlos Kleiber (pictured), born 3 July 1930?

Opera Portal DYK Archive (by topic) • Opera Project Talk DYK Archive (by date)

Archives – Table of Contents
Archives – Alphabetical Index

Article creation and cleanup requests

Article requests

In a now archived discussion about List of operas performed at the Wexford Festival, GuillaumeTell suggested that the following conductors/directors/designers really ought to appear in Misplaced Pages. I'm copying it here for editors who may be interested in creating these articles:

• Conductors – Maurizio Benini, György Fischer, Arnold Östman, Evelino Pidò
• Directors – Jean-Claude Auvray, Anthony Besch, Robert Carsen, John Cox, Peter Ebert, John Fulljames, Stefan Janski, Keith Warner
• Designers – Charles Edwards, John Stoddart, Joe Vaněk.

Per this discussion

• Peter G. Davis (critic and opera scholar of The New York Times and New York magazine)

Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (latest update 06:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))

Update: Dr. Blofeld has now created basic stubs for all of the above. I'll leave them up for the moment, as they need to be checked for bannering and possibly the addition of further references and/or external links with information for expanding the articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Helmut Jürgens, set designer (de:Helmut Jürgens).

Cleanup requests

• Per this discussion, the following transwikied articles from the Italian Misplaced Pages need considerable clean-up:

Stefano Gobatti • Luigi Bolis • Lando Bartolini • Gaetano Bardini • Basilio Basili • Lamberto Bergamini • Angelo Bendinelli • Armando Bini • Adolfo Bassi

• Per this discussion Andreas Scholl (needs copyediting and better referencing, too many "cherry-picked" quotes) and the Helen Donath recording section needs clean-up and pruning.

• Per this discussion, José Cura needs a better and more factual article with better referencing.
  • Update: after I'd done some reorganising, User:ManukaFonsworth came in and did a major expansion of the article with lots of supporting refs. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Martina Arroyo, needs more inline citations, currently tagged with {{more footnotes}}
• Walter Midgley, needs more inline citations, currently tagged with {{more footnotes}}
• Josef Greindl, great singer, needs a better article, odd translation and focus
• May Night needs inline citations, currently tagged with {{more footnotes}}
• Karl Hill, first Klingsor, is a stub, deserves better
  • I've cleaned up the Karl Hill article somewhat and added a Commons image of his grave (where he is clearly shown as Carl Hill!). I'll add some extra stuff tomorrow. --GuillaumeTell 23:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Free subscriptions to databases

• Questia Online Library – apply here for the next round
• Highbeam Research apply here for the next round
• JSTOR apply here for the next round
• Credo Reference sign up for waiting list here

Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?

As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this here. But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the current article guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from the German language Opera Project

Hello, just wanted to say Hi! from the German language Opera Project. We started in the beginning of 2011, a very recent effort compared to you. Likewise, our average articles on operas, composers etc. are quite behind the en:WP in terms of coverage and content. Which is a shame, considering the richness of opera life in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We have started by focussing on the widely read articles on popular operas, see this List, which gives page impressions in de:WP and en:WP and also global number of productions per year as a proxy for popularity. The rationale is this: given our low number of contributors, having 20 formerly poor articles on popular operas turned into solid works is worth more then 20 more articles on arcane subjects. How did you go about growing your project? PS: Maybe there could be some areas of cooperation, especially as regards access to and understanding of German language sources and literature. Let me know what you think. --Non mi tradir (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have introduced this timely proposal to the discussion here. --Smerus 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles needing libretto links

Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on this page on Karadar, but it will require adding those new links to the articles, and I'm not sure how long it will be before Karadar closes that loop hole. Anyhow, here's the list of operas so far where I've removed dead links and there is currently no other alternative. It's also possible to recover some of the karadar links via the Wayback machine, as was done at L'éclair, although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

List

Le domino noir, Sigurd (opera), Ciro in Babilonia, Sigismondo, Ricciardo e Zoraide, Eduardo e Cristina, L'equivoco stravagante, I Capuleti e i Montecchi, Médée (Charpentier), Emilia di Liverpool, Francesca di Foix, Il signor Bruschino

On this day - did you know

You know probably that I try to find a fact related to the day to put on top of this page. Some of the articles would profit from improvement. I plan to list those here, not starting a new section everytime.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Resources for 17th & 18th century French opera and theatre

• Le théâtre de la Foire a Paris – maintained by the University of Nantes. A rich database and image bank concentrating on the "non-official" theatrical troupes and their productions in seventeenth and eighteenth century Paris (in French only).

• CESAR – excellent database and image bank for French opera and theatre in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (in French and English).

Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Opera Infobox update

Following discussions here last March {archived in Archive 113), this is been under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation and three illustrative examples. It has been kept to only the most basic fields, with minimum scope for misleading oversimplification and/or bloat. The box could be a useful option in that it allows for more interesting images in the lead (although the composer's image can always be used the box). Also, the Operas by Composers vertical navboxes, which currently are the standard "top of article" devices, are now duplicated in many cases by the new horizontal footers that we have for many of the major opera composers. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera/Horizontal composer templates for the current list.

My recommendation would be to add this infobox as option in the Article Guide and in the Template section of the main OP page, with the proviso that it is not obligatory, and that they should be used with common sense and an awareness of the needs of particular articles. Please take a look at Template:Infobox opera and discuss here whether we should add this as an option in our Guide pages. To keep this discussion on track, any detailed suggestions for amendments/improvements, and examples of alternative boxes should be made at Template talk:Infobox opera (not pasted in here). Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am deeply depressed by the prosepct of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles. But just to kick off - and quite apart from any debate as to whether such templates are appropriate - as regards your proposed template for the 'Queen of Spades' - why is the native name given as 'Pikovaya dama', when the native name is 'Пиковая дама' (and not, by the way, as given in the article 'Пи́ковая дама'). Nothing prevents you giving the transcription, but it is wrong to give the impression that the Latin alphabet transcription is the 'native name'. And why is 'Pique dame' given as an alternative title for English Misplaced Pages? It may have possibly have been used in the old days in Germany , but it is not as far as I am aware used as an alternative title today in either the UK or US, or on recordings (contrary to the feeble claim made in the citation given in the article that 'it is now also used in English' - if indeed that is a quote from the source cited, as the wording is ambiguous and the phrase I have cited is not in quotes). Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Observe the use of Pique Dame as the title in English . A good point about the native title rendering, though! I'll fix that in the example. Voceditenore (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The examples of 'Píque dame' are fascinating. Discounting those that date from 1910 and 1922, it seems that when the opera was given in Russian in the US it was, up to the 1990s, (?still is) given the title 'Pique dame'. Mystifying. But if it's a usage, it's a usage, of course. I am correcting the Russian title in the article.--Smerus (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, its entry in the 2006 Grove Book of Operas is "QUEEN OF SPADES, THE ". So, I thinks it's a bit more than simple usage. I've added the Russian to the example box as well. Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

i still favor the composer navbox at the upper right of the article. Despite all the nice work done on this info box, the navbox is much more useful, and more convenient in this location than at the bottom of the page. I also favor making this consistent. If there is a vertical navbox for a composer, it should be used for every opera by that composer. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the infobox, and wonder if some kind of information that a navbox is available for a composer might be part of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That kind of "non-information", i.e., sending the reader to the bottom of the same page or sending them off to a completely separate template page, does not belong in the infobox, in my view, and I'm very against that. This has been discussed at length in Archive 113. There is, however, a facility in the infobox to actually list the other operas by the composer, as in Example 3. Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say "send" them away, just: "some kind of information that a navbox is available". - I tried Lolita, would not know how to add that it was first performed in Swedish, not knowing that title. - I offered Carmen on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't add that it was first performed in a Swedish translation, an "accident" of opera scheduling. That kind of thing belongs in the article, not the box. Gerda, the whole point of the box is to keep it simple. The title in Swedish was also "Lolita". Saying that a navbox to other operas by that composer is available (however you do it) does not belong in the infobox about the opera, especially when that navbox is right there at the bottom of the page. If it's not at the bottom of the page, then list the operas in the box in the collapsible "other" field. Voceditenore (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"Accident"? Lack of obtaining the rites. - Understand the other, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

My point stands about keeping the box simple and leaving details to the article. See also the discussion at Template talk:Infobox opera. Re Carmen, I added a clarification to your comment on Talk:Carmen where you invited people there to "help discuss". I gave a link to this discussion. I would appreciate it if simultaneous discussions were not started all over the place. The original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or not to provide this as an option in our Article Guide. The discussion has just started and I don't think is helpful to start adding it to articles immediately and/or proposing it on the talk pages of other articles. It completely muddies the waters and makes the whole thing look like a fait accompli, when it is not. Can we please have some patience and let this discussion take its course. Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Carmen was not started, but a continued discussion. - I started Nixon in China (opera), please check, and I had no intentions to do more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you had proposed an infobox on Carmen, shortly before it was to appear as TFA. Your new comment and section was misleading. If you meant it as a new proposal to add the box to that article. Then you should have said so, not imply that people should discuss {{Infobox opera}} there, because that's how it read. I also think you were wrong to jump the gun and add it to Nixon in China (another featured article) when this discussion is less than 24 hours old. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I did NOT propose to add the infobox to the Carmen article, just coming from The Rite of Spring (the discussion continued). - I don't know the expression "jump the gun" but only added the infobox to an article of an author I know well enough. WP:QAI members are committed to accessibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a joint work with Brianboulton, and with the community for that matter. I am not getting involved with this. I do not intend to take any action, but that is not because I like or dislike it, but because a discussion is under way about it, (here, though better on article talk). You all work it out please (exiting discussion).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that it was joint work. Then let's wait if everybody agrees (with me) that the infobox is better than the list of his other works we had so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I happen to agree that the infobox is an improvement on the old navbox in that article, but that's not the point. I repeat, the original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or not to provide this as an option in our Article Guide and to discuss how best to implement the change, if there's a consensus for it, because it has a lot of implications for the previous consistency of opera articles. Jumping the gun refers to the fact that as soon as the discussion started, you went ahead and started adding the infobox to opera articles anyway. Nixon in China has been a featured article for 2 years without this "accessibility feature" and now it needs to have an infobox added immediately? Obviously, if you're going to start adding infoboxes to articles without waiting for the discussion here, you will. I simply do not think it's helpful at this point, and see no reason why you cannot wait a few days. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that it be removed, until such time as there is broad agreement. Really, I did not want to be dragged into this and I'm not best pleased by this development.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't repeat my previous reservations but simply note that whoever predicted errors creeping in on infoboxes is right – as neatly proved on the draft Carmen one. I also feel it very optimistic that these will not in time balloon, as the same arguments for starting them in the first place can also be used to expand them to include lots more data in future. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Consistency issues

Trying to get this discussion back on track... We currently have 2,088 articles on individual operas. I think we have to accept that adding this box as an option to the Article Guide means that for quite a while, probably 100 years :-), opera articles will no longer have one consistent "look"—they'd have two. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, or at least so bad that we simply fossilize everything as it has been for the last 6 years. Also, there are currently a lot of obscure opera articles which have don't a composer navbox either. And we already have articles like Candide (operetta) and Der Protagonist, which by consensus use footer boxes (Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein and Works for the stage by Kurt Weill) that include the composers' other (non-opera) stage works. But, if we do add it to the Guide and editors start adding it to articles, I do think that as a project we should priortise making all the operas by a single composer consistent, rather than adding the box willy nilly. Some members find the current vertical navbox convenient. Others actually prefer the horizontal footer (at least from past discussions). But I'm not sure that a minor inconvenience for editors (shifting to footer navboxes) necessarily outweighs the benefits of an infobox with its increased image flexibility, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think it's a problem. Actually the infobox "looks" quite like the former right-corner navbox, especially if the image is the one of the composer. - I see it just as an addition, not a major change. Patiently yours, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be in deepest darkest Tuscany for the next week, with only intermittent access, if at all. In the meantime, I've left notes on the talk pages of all the members who participated in the March discussion, letting them know about the new box and this discussion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not entirely clear about the nature and location of 'this discussion'. Is 'this discussion' about what an infobox might look like, or about whether there should be some new guidance on infoboxes, based on the proposed model, by the Project? These are two quite separate issues. I am not aware that the second one has yet been formally broached. Gerda 'doesn't think it's a problem' and I congratulate her on her eternal Fotherington-Thomas grade optimism. I have a suspicion that others may not agree with her however.--Smerus (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just nipping in before I go. I tend to agree with you, Smerus, which is why I pointed out some potential objections/problems, others might have. This discussion is about whether there should be some new Project guidance on using an opera infobox, based on the proposed model, i.e. offering it as an option. I had, I thought, made that clear at the beginning of this discussion, but it... er... got a bit de-railed, by the precipitous adding of it to articles before the discussion even got underway. Various tweaks etc. can always be made later to the box itself, if the need arises, but it's in a reasonably stable state now (after a fair amount of discussion on the template talk page), and if we do adopt it as option, it might be a good idea to let it "settle in" and monitor how it's working out for a while. Anyhow, this discussion should stay open for at least a week. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

bene, a rivederla!--Smerus (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll second the wise words of Smerus: "I am deeply depressed by the prospect of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles." That said, my hat is off to those who have developed the opera templates, as the results of their considerable labors strike me as well-considered and classy. I just hope these templates fare better than some other classical-oriented ones that have been developed, only to draw repeated surreptitious deletions by parties who seem to consider anyone objecting to universal application of pop-oriented boxes to be some sort of elitist intent on subverting the common weal. In general I would feel comfortable if we were to offer guidance endorsing the new boxes' judicious use. One question: do they sufficiently allow for operas that exist in more or less coequal versions in different languages, like, say, William Tell? Sorry if my quick skim of the discussion page missed that issue, but if they don't it may be a matter worth considering there--I don't mean to derail discussion further here! Drhoehl (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Responding just to the point about versions, so as not to mix it up with my tome below, which is on the general principle at hand. "Guglielmo Tell" could be added as "Other title", with "Guillaume Tell" used as "native title". We discussed the possibility of a "versions" field at Template talk:Infobox opera, and decided against it, as this is the kind of detail best left to the article where it can be properly explained and contextualised, not to mention that the distinction between a revised version and something which constitutes a virtually different opera is a blurry continuum. We're always going to have a few "outliers", whether we have an infobox or not—it applies to questions of categorisation etc. as well. We also tend to treat versions quite differently from article to article, although that's again a separate issue. Sometimes, it's a brief mention, as in William Tell. Sometimes, the "other versions" are gone into in much more detail in a separate section in the article, e.g. Lucia di Lammermoor#Lucie de Lammermoor. Sometimes they get two separate articles, e.g. Les vêpres siciliennes and I vespri Siciliani. Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I support making the recently developed infobox as an option (and spent the time helping to develop it and keep it simple) is that it is probably our best chance of avoiding these depressing, cyclical time-sinks. Up to now, we have had the situation where half-baked "test" boxes were added to articles on a one-off basis, e.g. Motezuma or yet another "experimental" version is proposed for addition to an article that was about to become Today's Featured Article, e.g. Carmen etc. with resulting unfocused, rambling, and sometimes disruptive discussions started all over the place. Like it or not, this will keep happening, unless we develop an infobox for optional use which has minimum capacity for:

1. misleading or over-simplifying

2. skewing or drastically limiting the layout of the rest of the article

3. adding walls of code which are off-putting to both new and many experienced editors

4. re-creating the whole article as wall of bullet points that actually obscure the key information rather than making it more accessible.

I think this box fulfills that and in addition gives us greater flexibility in illustrating articles, and could be a positive improvement for many of them. I've gone through all the past discussions here on developing an opera infobox, and all the editors participating were either in favour (in varying degrees) or at least not opposed to one, if it was succinct and reasonably well-thought out. The main problem before was the worry that developing one would entail a distracting time-sink. But the main donkey-work has now been done. Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's so little data reuse possible in the current state of the proposed draft infobox. For instance, the flattening of every single work to the undifferentiated category of "opera" means that extra work needs to be done to create, say, a list of works (where it is usual to describe the sub-genre). One possibility of making the data more useful, while not reopening discussions on display formats, would be to store some info as non-displaying. It will mean a very small amount of extra work loading the structure up in the first place. This would improve re-usability, and offer the possibility of richer meta-data. Also, if it is decided that a reader can gain valuable information from knowing if a work is an opera bouffe or a tragédie lyrique the sub-genre field can be made visible and no extra work needs done. (edited) Scarabocchio (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we have lists of operas for every major composer (and most of the minor ones as well). Virtually all of them already include the sub-genres. The vast majority of them were made by Kleinzach and are, in my view, some of the most valuable opera pages on Misplaced Pages. See Category:Lists of operas by composer. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate on Scarabocchio's points, I believe the infobox is structurally much more significant that most of us realize (it's not just about making a nice article). I was reading The WP article on Misplaced Pages. It actually mentions one of the functions of infoboxes: Since WP is often mined for data to be supplied elsewhere (e.g. Google's Knowledge Graph), the infobox supplies important main points to populate these other uses of WP, particularly as the semantic web begins to emerge. For that reason I think infoboxes should be used when possible and that over-simplification, while making them easier, does not do justice to WP:Opera or to WP. -- kosboot (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to answer a couple of points here. There is no need to add an extra field for sub-genre. The current guidance is

If there is a referenced sub-genre, the linked term can be put in parentheses, e.g. "Opera (dramma giocoso) in 4 acts". However, do not list the sub-genre if it would lead to misleading oversimplification. Sub-genre distinctions can be very blurry, and are best explicated in the article text.

So I really don't see what the problem is. There was also discussion on this point at Template talk:Infobox opera when the box was being developed. I'd suggest that discussion about the specific details and structure of the box, proposed future changes etc. take place there, so we can keep track of it as the box develops rather than diffusing it here. Re the general issue of metadata, I think everyone here is aware of that aspect, and most of us see a certain amount of value in it. However, I also think that, as with everything else, we need to balance several issues, including editor retention and our duty not to mislead the reader or to bury the key facts in a wall of detail. Those are my priorities and those of several other active editors here—not simply making life easy for the commercial companies data-mining Misplaced Pages for profit. I'm sure this essay won't change minds either way, but it's worth reading an alternative viewpoint. Voceditenore (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Update

As this discussion has been open for over two weeks with some reservations but without any major objections to making this box available as an option for articles on individual operas, I've now gone ahead and added it to the list of templates on the main project page and to the Article Guide. Hopefully, this will not prove to be the end of civilization as we know it, although you never know ;). Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Johann Hugo von Wilderer

Johann Hugo von Wilderer was created as a stub (with some hidden text) as a red link from a Bach article. He created several operas, room for expansion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of the hidden text is now translation, but it needs citations - the typical German article. Grove is cited as literature, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect description of picture of Peri

Howdy. In the article for Peri's Euridice, there is a picture of Peri in dress. It's stated that this is Peri dressed to perform the title role of his opera. A few things about this: firstly, it's not necessarily a picture of Peri; this was a costume design drawing, not a painting. It may well have been made before anybody was cast for the role. Secondly, the drawing has nothing to do with Euridice. It was made for Intermedio 5 of La Pellegrina, for the role of Arion (which Peri did indeed play). This was in 1589, not 1600.

Since the drawing may or may not be of Peri, and has absolutely nothing to do with Euridice, I suggest it be removed from this article.

Cheers Alastair

<email redacted>— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.95 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Alastair. I see the source of this image is this website: http://www.nndb.com/people/694/000097403/ - and the website does not indicate what it is. Alastair, what is the source of your information? -- kosboot (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, I've hidden your email address from spammers. There are various views on what the image depicts, but most sources I've seen, e.g. The Grove Book of Opera Singers and The Medici Wedding of 1589: Florentine Festival As Theatrum Mundi give the description as Peri in the role of Arion, and give Buontalenti as the artist. I've removed it from the article and replaced it with the image of the Prologue from further down. Euridice (Peri) is actually in a pretty dire state with poor referencing. I just corrected a whopper which stated that Peri sang the title role! I corrected it to Orfeo, which can be referenced, but I haven't the time to do it now. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Orfeo referenced now. Voceditenore (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Things were not helped by the black and white version of the image, also on Commons, which was erroneously labelled as Peri in his costume as Orfeo. . I've now fixed that description and checked all the articles that link to one of these images to make sure they aren't saying it's Peri in Daphne (or Euridice). Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Méhul's Joseph

It seems to me that the substitution of Template:Infobox opera for Template:Méhul operas in the article Joseph (opera) is not an improvement. It removes the portrait of the composer, makes the image of the costume designs so small that the role names are difficult to read, and otherwise only repeats information that is already included in the lead of the article. And isn't it contextually better to keep the costume designs closer to the role table? Also, if a new article about a Méhul opera appears, there will now be two templates to which it should be added for navigation. The more of these that we have, the more difficult it will be to add new articles to these lists and to keep them all co-ordinated. I see several disadvantages and little or no advantage with this change. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking questions instead of reverting!

• Of course the picture of the composer could appear instead, but it is not unique to that opera. Open to discussion.
• If we take the costumes pic, it could be larger. Open to discussion.
• An infobox is meant to repeat, the list of other works is even an addition to the lead, also the link to the list of operas sooner than under the heading "Opera". I might want to point out why the date format of the premiere is preferable to the one in the article but was warned not to do so ;)
• The "two templates" are temporary in a state of transition. Perhaps the composer deserves a bottom navbox on his 250th birthday, to start having just one template right away? There we could have his other operas as red links, with no need to change anything when a new one is added. - Many other composers have them, where "two templates" is no problem.

Again, thank you for your feedback, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean about the date format of the premiere. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing this example here instead of Talk:Joseph (opera) because it highlights some of the potential problems with this infobox and its application in general. Re the picture, I decided not to discuss and put the composer back at the top and the costumes where they were, for the reasons outlined by Robert above. That was most definitely not an improvement, and actually a detriment. The infobox does not work well when displaying images like this. Also don't bold the composer, and don't link an extremely common city like Paris. I tweaked the premiere place slightly to make it a little clearer and removed Book of Genesis from based on. That field is for specific literary works which were the principal basis for the libretto. It is a misleading oversimplification to say Book of Genesis, as the opera is loosely based on only one story from it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for comments, we are learning ;) - I bolded the composer because of the bold "other" title and because a vaguely remember a comment regarding that, but will not do it again. I would have been happy to refer to the specific Bible source but it was not given in the article, and I had no time to find and insert it (roughly Chapters 39 to 47). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, in a case like that, it may be better to leave it blank. The field was meant for cases where specific literary works formed the basis of the libretto. If you feel compelled to, put something like: "Biblical story of Joseph". Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Robert that one HUGE disadvantage of this infobox when there are no horizontal footer navboxes for that composer is that everything must be added by hand to each infobox when a new opera is created, not to mention recreating the list each time the infobox is added to another opera by that composer. While it's true that this is a period of transition, there are things that can be done to ease this.

First, restrict adding the infobox to articles for which a horizontal composer navbox is already available. Editors who are mad keen to add these infoboxes, should take responsibility for seeing that such navoxes are created, and no, not ones filled with red links, please. For operas which do have a horizontal navbox seriously think of working in units, i.e. change over all the operas by one composer, rather than randomly skipping around adding an infobox here and there.

I think we need a fairly lengthy period to watch how these boxes settle in and to see what other sorts of problems crop up and to re-evaluate their use, if necessary. In the meantime, they should be added in as consistent a way as possible and starting with low profile articles. I'm going to be frank here... adding or attempting to add them to Featured Articles at this early stage, is a bad idea, and in my view, disruptive. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: better no overlinking, better an infobox where there is a navbox already, better if not FA, no red links in navboxes (but I was used to see more than hundred red links in the Bach cantata navbox when I started, now all turned blue). Not agreed: "mad keen", "randomly", and "working in units" (because then you also have to change in units), better have one improved and then take the others of the unit from there, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, or if you understood what I meant by units, but I was suggesting that if an infobox is added to one opera by a composer, then it might be a good idea to gradually add it to the other operas by the same composer so that one set is changed over completely before moving on to another composer, rather than leaving several opera composers whose opera articles are inconsistently presented. On the other hand, if in a few months time project members decide to deprecate the box, then we would have to remove it in units too. So you may have a point. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understood you, so now we have all operas by Méhul, - but need too change all of them to the more precise captions ;) - I need to go for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The way it is now is too confusing, with the title Joseph over the picture of Méhul. If casual readers do not glance down at the caption, they may initially assume it is a picture of Joseph, the subject of the opera. If the Infobox is used, it should have a different picture rather than the portrait of Méhul. (However, since the infobox adds nothing to the article, as far as I can see, I think it should be deleted altogether. Sorry.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a good point about not using the picture of the composer, - it was only used because you found the other too small, remember. I will try now to have the "costums" picture larger in that one opera, as a test, not changing the others. - We may also think about the composer's name above the image, at least in cases where he is pictured. Such design questions should be raised at the template talk. - The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information, may I say that much? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I tentatively got the composers name above the image. If you don't like it, it's easily changed back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A nmumber of points: but the first one is, what on earth is this discussion doing here? Should it not be on the talk page of Joseph (opera)? I thought that the discussion of infoboxes was to be on a case-by case basis. I hope no one is thinking of any argument such as 'As it's been accepted for this opera, we can now put an infobox on any opera without discussion.'?

Second: the box looks damned ugly and confusing with thne costume pictures squashed next to each other and bits of the accompanying text in the picture.

Third: What on earth is the point of it? And what can Gerda mean when she says 'The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information'. In what way is this an 'accessibility' tool? If this is the justification for it, no one has given any evidence-base that this enhances 'accessibility' in any way. The box simply repeats, with a confusing picture, exactly the information in the brief lead. If something doesn't add to an article, as Gerda admits its the case here, it should be removed from that article.

Fouth: 'Opera in three acts' is not a genre, it is a description. 'Opéra comique' might be a genre description if it was accurate (I'm not sure it is). If you can't cite (in the article) what genre the opera belongs to, it is actually fundamentally misleading to put anything to this effect in the infobox.

Therefore: please remove this entire discussion to the article talk page, and record my opinion there as Delete, on the grounds of it being (to recap) unattractive, repetitive, pointless and misleading.--Smerus (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I put this in the wrong place, but I think the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well. It should probably be of concern to most editors who participate in this probject. That is why I put the discussion here. (I admit however, that I was not editing when the prior discussions concerning this infobox occurred, and I have not taken the time to read the archived discussions. Perhaps I should.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation: but I really think it would be correct to have the discussion on the article talk page (which presently does not even note that a discussion is taking place here). The assumption that 'the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well' is one which is likely to prove optimistic in view of prior discussions; and it would therefore also be highly sanguine to assume that agreement on one (if it can be obtained) would automatically mean agreement on others. I note by the way that in its presently etiolated state, the infobox is not much different from the original Méhul template (which also I see gives 'opera in 3 acts' as a genre). So has all this discussion been, in effect, merely about the picture? As the English tabloid newspapers are wont to say, 'Why, oh why?'.--Smerus (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Robert that the use in this article is illustrative of more general problems with the box, e.g. the problems of updating the navigation to other operas, the problem with squashing certain types of images into the box, and the use of the field "Genre", and as such is fine to discuss here. As to problems of the use specifically in that article, well, yes, I would say to bring further discussion there. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with using genre like this in the box in the sense that opera is a broad genre of theatrical art. Note the OP guidance here which has been there practically since the project began:

The introduction is normally in the present tense, and should begin with the opera's title in bold italics (with English translation where appropriate), the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, librettist, language of the libretto, source of the libretto (when based on another work), and the date of the premiere.

Of course there are numerous sub-genres, although their names are not particularly illuminating in many cases, apart from historical interest, and even then, there is lot of variation in the listing of the "sub-genre" (often simply a descriptive term) for the same opera, blurry boundaries, synonymy etc. See my comment at Talk:Joseph (opera) as to why its "sub-genre" was listed as "drame en trois actes, mêlé de chant" in the opening night affiches. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for citing the OP guidance. This is explicit: 'the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, '. Thus, the genre here is simply 'opera'; the number of acts (per the guidance) is not part of the genre. You can either specify the no. of acts in as separate line of the box (if you really must), or you can leave it in the text of the article. As I note this topic is now becoming somewhat schizophrenic between here and the article talk-page, I am copying this comment there.--Smerus (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And by the way.....a brief reading of the brief article itself showed, among other things, clunky writing, over- and under-linking, repetition of information (some of it false), and text under inappropriate headings. I have tried to correct these issues. It does suggest however, that work on the articles themsleves is rather more important and necessary that messing about with ancillary features.--Smerus (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes should run horizontally, at the foot of the article, rather than in the "infobox" location, as they do in most of Misplaced Pages. If this is an issue on a large number of articles, I'm sure a bot operator would assist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox redux

An editor has asked at Talk:Joseph (opera)#Infobox: "I'd like to know if this is the beginning of a whole series of problems on these articles". Since infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, and given the reaction at Joseph, it probably will mean discussions like that on every page to which it is added.

Slight rewind... We had the situation here where we were being faced with attempts to add ad hoc (and wildly inappropriate) boxes to articles, with no evidence that it would let up. There were at least two active members keen to have them, another who had previously suggested we think about this, some who were agnostic, and one or two who were quite opposed to them. For better or worse, there was no longer a clear consensus not to have them. (See discussions dating back to February here and multiple sections here.)

In March, after gallons of virtual ink had been spilled, I proposed a plan that we work on an infobox that "does least harm" and when it was in a reasonably complete state that we discuss whether there was a consensus to add the box to our list of templates as an option. That approach had reasonable agreement. All active members who were not already engaged in the seemingly endless discussions, were notified, and also invited to give input at Template talk:Infobox opera where the box was being developed. Several did. This month the proposed box was put to a discussion, which remained opened for over two weeks, with members notified again. My reading of the consensus of that discussion (and I can only go by what people actually said) was to add it as an option for now.

Fast forward... There is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that we do not recommend its use. I've given my best shot at resolving this issue, which trust me, will not go away, whatever we do. I will leave it to someone else to take the lead in future discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tippett

Apologies for interrupting the infobox debate. I'm delighted to see that The Midsummer Marriage is to be performed at the Proms this year; our page is quite basic, in particular very little is there of performance history. I'm about to go plough through Google searches to see what I can find out, and will start dumping the info on the talk page. If anyone has any paper-based info that they can add, that would be very helpful. In fact almost certainly better than what I'm about to find. ;-) And then we can have a go at patting the info into shape. Listening to Gloriana at ROH last night made me apprecaite anew how wonderful The Midsummer Marriage is almost-instinct 09:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Have to admit I hated his Knot Garden, but like his Child of our Time. Should I give Midsummer Marriage a try? Adam Cuerden 10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Midsummer Marriage is from before the change of style that came about thanks to the composition of King Priam. So if you like Child Of Our Time, you have a good chance of enjoying The Midsummer Marriage, which is lyrical and intense. The most commonly encountered bit is the Ritual Dances from the middle act. Here they are on Youtube: almost-instinct 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone can remember foreign productions off the top of their head, that would give me something to go searching for. I've chanced upon productions in San Fran, NY and Stockholm. Presumably there must have been some in Germany? To my surprise there isn't a German WP page on the opera almost-instinct 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah, let's get back to music! For interest btw here is a very intemperate putdown of Tippett by Norman Lebrecht (from 2004).....--Smerus (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, Almost-Instinct! I've added one source to the talk page and will look for more for you. I was at the 1996 ROH performance. I'll see if I can dig out the programme. Tippett himself came out for a curtain call, but I'm ashamed to say that all I can remember of the opera itself was a man in his underpants dancing around with a huge upright pole in his hands. Apparently, even after days of rehearsals, Joan Sutherland still had no idea what the opera was about and finally asked Tippett, who told her cryptically: "It's just something inside me that I have to get out." I kind of had the same reaction as Dame Joan. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a programme of a Welsh National Opera production (Ian Watt-Smith/Richard Armstrong) which I saw in Leeds in 1976 and another (somewhere) of a 1985 Opera North production, also in Leeds (Tim Albery/David Lloyd-Jones) - I'll try to dig them out, plus the programme for the 2005 ROH revival if required. The only other Tippett opera that I like (I've seen 'em all except Robin Hood) is King Priam. (Oh, and I greatly enjoyed Gloriana last Saturday after the Frederick Ashton Wikimedia editathon in the ROH's ex-crush bar (and quite a bit of wine in the Globe.)) --GuillaumeTell 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've pasted in some of GT's info to the talk page, where I've been adding lots of links and from which I'm getting an idea of the performance narrative - can we continue there please, so I can unfollow this page once again? ;-) almost-instinct 12:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Charpentier

Louise
opera (Roman musical) in four acts by Gustave Charpentier
Gustave Charpentier, the composer of Louise
Librettist	Gustave Charpentier Saint-Pol-Roux
Language	French
Premiere	2 February 1900 (1900-02-02) Opéra-Comique, Paris
Other	Julien (1913), a sequel to Louise

Today's birthday child, Charpentier, is famous for an opera, Louise. It comes with a navbox on the right that doesn't show the composer's picture, only the picture's name. I don't find why, and possibly it's only me who sees it like that. I am so tempted to create an infobox instead ;) - Back to that topic, I think it's way to soon to suspend that idea. The parameter "Genre" needs more thinking before we proceed, thinking that should happen on the template talk. We could call what we say there differently (some templates have "type") and/or use "Genre" only if different from opera, - open for suggestions. We should also accept that new cases may require new thoughts. We are making first steps. My approach would be to first try one infobox a day, discuss it and make changes as needed, as for example Joseph (opera), an article that was improved in the process and was viewed more than ever ;) Next: Louise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

awaiting feedback --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Much better than the current !Infobox, which is actually a navbox with only one link in it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec, Andy) formatted the second librettist, who seemed not of equal importance in the article, but is welcome ;) - Any number can be shown, - if too many of a kind, the list can be collapsed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing that the Joseph discussion has showed is that the original article was sorely wanting. It's a bit better now but still rather basic. The inadequacies of the article meant a lot of toing-and-froing over the proposed infobox. So may I gently suggest that before anyone roars ahead with infoboxes, the priority ought to be to ensure that the article is accurate and (at least a little) above basic standards. I won't prentend to be an expert on Louise, but the article is very thin to say the least. If there is editorial energy to spare, could it, in the first instance at least, be devoted to the article? That is, after all, what WP:OPERA is here for. The decorations can be considered later. --Smerus (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to replace the navbox with this infobox, which merely (inadequately) repeats information better covered in the article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of infoboxes is to repeat key points from the article. If you object to them on that basis, please set up an RfC to remove them from Misplaced Pages, in order that the level of community support for you view may be determined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Esmeralda (opera)

Esmeralda is an opera by Arthur Goring Thomas based on Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris". It was commissioned and first produced by Carl Rosa Opera Company in 1883. See: The opera was given in 1890 at Covent Garden, with a cast led by Nellie Melba and Jean de Reszke, singing in French translation. It also was produced at the Metropolitan Opera House in 1900:

Plot summary and some other info here:

Does anyone want to put up an article on this? Note that an 1836 opera on the same theme, "La Esmeralda", has a Misplaced Pages article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Opera red links

For Gerhard Faulstich, two operas are missing, both have an entry in German. Help welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for filling the Blood Wedding with blood and life, Voceditenore. Now I stumble again: Wuppertal Opera, - we have a stub of the former theatre Wuppertaler Bühnen, but since 1996 that merged with Musiktheater im Revier, - I created a redirect for now, but it's probably not the final solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

After looking for Wuppertal Opera, I was quite amazed how many great people sang there, conducted, staged new works: it deserves a bit more of an article. We have a stub on Opernhaus Wuppertal also, the structure. Should we keep both? How to name the one with content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I can with the Opernhaus, but I've reached the limits of my and Google Translate's German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly, we cover the opera house and the company in the same article. But there is a lot of variation. Sometimes the article is named for the theatre, e.g. La Fenice, and sometimes for the company, e.g. Hamburg State Opera. On the other hand, Metropolitan Opera is about the company with summary information about its opera houses over the years, each of which has its own article. The Royal Opera House had several companies associated with it historically. There is a separate article for its own company The Royal Opera which was founded after WW II. De Nederlandse Opera has used a couple of theatres during their history. There are separate articles for those: Het Muziektheater and Stadsschouwburg (Amsterdam). In this case, I'd be inclined to cover the company in the same article as the house, Opernhaus Wuppertal. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with that but then it should have a different name, because "Haus" clearly means only the house, never a company. I could live with the common name Wuppertal Opera, - many articles simply state "performed in Wuppertal", - there I replaced the link to the city by one to the (redirect to the) opera. The German name of the company changed at least once, and it is for plays also, less interesting in English. Somewhere we need to connect to the world famous ballet, - I saw Pina Bausch's "Sacre du Printemps" there. - Thank you, Andy, for the house! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Wuppertaler Bühnen (which interwiki-links to the German article about the company), we have Schauspielhaus (Wuppertal), which I'm currently expanding, and which is about the building (and interwiki-links to the German article about the building). Generally, I favour having separate articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever you both think is best. It's not a big deal. As I said, there seem to be all sorts of approaches since these articles "grew like Topsy" over the years, especially the German ones. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I conclude from the German that Schauspielhaus is/was for plays, perhaps chamber opera and intimate dance ('Tanztheater' is no ballet), and going to be closed this year (probably right now, end of the season), so at best "a" home, not "the" home. What about the company then, name and content? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved to Schauspielhaus Wuppertal, for consistency. Poor house, last day today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I would like to add about operas and people connected to the opera house, feeling it should go to the house rather than the institution, but open to different ideas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd put in the house article as well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, and (after Kafka) turned to Bluthochzeit. It's missing a synopsis, but I wonder how much we need, given that the play has an article, please help, also filling more red links for important German theatre people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

David Gamrekeli

David Gamrekeli, singer: As David Gamrekeli was the singing pedagogue of the opera singer Igor Morozov at the Tchaikovsky-Conservatory in Moscow, he must have worked there.. but unfortunately I don't have any documents about this fact and I only know the fact. Angelika-Ditha (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

R.I.P. Bruno Bartoletti

This article could use some major clean up. I worked on the lead, but don't have time for much else. Given that he just passed away in June there probably will be more current traffic to this page.4meter4 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 4meter4, great to see you here, again! It doesn't look too bad, but I agree, it needs a good copyedit in general. It also reads a little too much like an obituary. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you, I will move you on the sad list of people we miss, - enjoy real life, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. I've missed our collaboration as well. It's nice to be back for a little bit. I'll probably be around on and off this month and then I will be gone again. I will be starting up some graduate courses shortly at the University of the Arts which will keep me pretty busy until the end of July, and then I go back to teaching my own students and rehearsing with the various music groups I conduct/perform in come August. I'll probably be around on and off this month and then I will be gone again.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

200th Anniversary of Verdi's birth this October

I know I am not around much these days, but I thought I might point out that Giuseppe Verdi has a 200th birthday coming up in October. It would be nice for the project to feature one of opera's flagship composers that month. It would be great to improve Verdi's biography (FA?) and some related pages in time for his bicentennial. Perhaps User:Brianboulton and User:Tim riley would be willing to help get the article ready for FA/the main page? Also, Gerda might be able to put together some related things on the portal. What do you all think?4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the middle of a summer-long project (when I don't get diverted off into areas like Dr. Sun Yat-sen (opera) as I have been all day it seems!) to get all the Verdi articles updated and each with a "Composition history", "Performance History" (most have this, though Voceditenore's discovery of http://www.librettodopera.it/librettodopera/ has been a great resource for (mostly) 19th C. performances), and also a section on "Music", as well as the usual sections such as "Recordings" which are mostly up top date, though with the loss (death of the compiler, I believe) of the operadis source, we're rather limited to Amazon, etc. Am currently up to I masnadieri with a bit more to do there. Some later articles have a lot more than the early ones, of course.

One question: please take a look at the Otello#Critical evaluation of the opera section which has been tagged as "personal opinion" for five years....!! Do we just get rid of it??

I would guess that the Giuseppe Verdi article will need a lot of work to get to FA status...... Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think FA may be a bit too ambitious at this point. But, we could at least clean up the article and expand it a bit.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Premiere date of Robert Bruce

I saw the date of the premiere of Robert Bruce (opera) was given as 23 December 1846 in the article La donna del lago citing Richard Osborne's 2007 edition of Rossini. Several other sources I checked give 30 December as the date of the premiere. After changing Robert Bruce (opera) to 23 December, based on Richard Osborne 2007 book, which does indeed have 23 December, I decided to check Le Ménestrel (see vol. 14, no, 4 (27 December 1846)). This seems to say the premiere was postponed to the following Wednesday (i.e., the 30th) because Rosine Stoltz was indisposed. My French is hardly perfect. Can someone else who can read French check whether this is correct? Thanks for help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that. This article by William Ashbrook gives the 30th as the premiere (also in his Donizetti and his Operas). Ditto Weinstock's biography of Rossini. Ditto Gioachino Rossini: A Research and Information Guide (Routledge, 2010). Ditto Casaglia. Note also that the following week's issue of Ménestrel vol. 14, no, 5 (3 January 1847) reviews the premiere . I'd trust Ménestrel and Ashbrook et al. I think Osborne got it wrong. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like they also say that other Paris newspapers reported on the 24th that the premiere had taken place If that was so, perhaps that accounts for Richard Osborne's error. I'll revise my edits back to 30 December and link Le Ménestrel to say why we think Richard Osborne is incorrect. Thanks for the help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the revised 2nd edition 2007, Osborne himself says its the 30th. See , p. 257. Where did you get 23rd? Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've copied the above conversation to Talk:Robert Bruce (opera) and continued it there. These sorts of things should be preserved (and discussed) on the article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. I have the hardcopy of the 2007 second edition and on p. 137 it says 23 December 1846. (And this is apparently what the editor who added the info to the article La donna del lago used). However, I just checked p. 357 (actually not 257), and yes it says 30 December there. So that's an inconsistency in his book. (Digital searching certainly helps to find things like this.) BTW, do you also read Le Ménestrel to say that some journals reported on the 24th the premiere had taken place? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To my reading, it says the official announcement of the postponement and the explanation had appeared in the press on the 24th, and it then goes on to quote the announcement. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was probably not accurately understanding: "Voici, du reste, le fait officiel tel qu'il a été inséré dans plusieurs journaux du 24." (interpreting it to explain Osborne's 23 December date.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see it now. The smaller print indicates they are quoting the official announcement, inserted in several journals on the 24th. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Category move

Can a kind admin please move Category:Opera Cycle (singular, upper case) to Category:Opera cycles (plural, lower case). Thanks. -- Jack of Oz 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On the off chance that an admin might not see this, I've listed it at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative images for opera composer navboxes

Template:Verdi operas/sandbox I created Template:Verdi operas/sandbox in order to try some code which I believe would allow an optional alternative image to be displayed on specific opera pages. For example, if this change were made to Template:Verdi operas, the code added to the page for a particular opera could be as follows:

{{Verdi operas|altimage=GiuseppeVerdi.jpg}}

The result is shown to the right here. This would allow us to vary the portrait that is displayed for a particular opera. For instance, a portrait of the composer as he appeared around the time the opera was written might be used. If the parameter "altimage" is omitted, the default image would be displayed. See Template:Verdi operas/testcases for the original template compared to the two sandbox test cases, with and without the added parameter "altimage".

In Template:Verdi operas the value of the image parameter would need to be changed from this:

|image=Verdi.jpg

to this:

|image={{#if:{{{altimage|}}} | {{{altimage}}} |Verdi.jpg}}

Similar changes could be made to other composer navboxes, e.g., Template:Meyerbeer operas, since for Meyerbeer we have a variety of portraits made at different times in the composer's life. Would this be an option other editors would be interested in having available? Are there any objections to adding it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The idea would be good, if only Verdi hadn't a bottom navbox which covers much more than his operas and makes the side navbox redundant. Save it for composers who don't have a bottom navbox? - I actually would prefer to create a bottom navbox for those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the bottom navbox, but I don't think we have to remove the current opera navboxes at the top, just because a bottom navbox has been added. If we have to choose, I would prefer the one at the top. And I don't think it should be cluttered up with bits of info generally found in the lead, like the infoboxes that have been added to Rigoletto and Don Carlos. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support the altimage idea, and agree that it would be appropriate for Meyerbeer and others. I concur with Robert.Allen on top/bottom boxes.--Smerus (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox opera

I support the restoration the Template:Monteverdi operas, and similar templates on other opera pages that seem to have been changed by one editor to Template:Infobox opera. See Pages that link to "Template:Infobox opera". If one can't find consensus for these changes why are they being made? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes for the Méhul operas, since we had a discussion at Talk: Joseph (opera), in which there did not appear to be consensus for this change, and it was changed back. But one editor went ahead in spite of that and changed it for all of that composer's operas. I don't find that acceptable, --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

please note that "one editor" added them BEFORE said discussion about Joseph (actually because of your comment about consistency, otherwise I would not have touched them), - check your premises, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply for the first entry) {{Infobox opera}} is an option supported by this project, see its Manual of style. Instead of seeing articles from the standpoint of "their" authors, I would be interested in knowing what readers think about the helpfulness of an infobox on the specific opera vs. a navbox of the other operas by a composer, which is covered twice, side and bottom. I understand that many readers don't even understand that they are able to uncollapse a collapsed section. We can "ask" our readers about an infobox only if we show them one, because I doubt that they will normally get to article histories and talk pages. - An opera typically gives time and location, - that's what an infobox can do, as a minimum. The navbox doesn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't read that as a mandate to use it, and I don't see there is a consensus to make these changes. In fact I now believe rather strongly it should be removed from the guidelines altogether. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, there is no mandate for anyone to make unilateral changes; and as you are aware, such changes will not necessarily have the support of editors. Readers don't seem to be deluging us with requests for extensive infoboxes, so your assumptions on what they might like are pure WP:OR. Please discuss case by case in the talk page for each opera, and one at a time, as we don't all have lots of spare time to deal with lots of things simultaneously. I suggest you might revert any changes you have already made in this respect.--Smerus (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• In my view, the implication of the option, particularly when added to long-established articles, is that it if any editors object, they can revert it then discuss on the talk page. It is perhaps most useful and less controversial for operas which don't have a header navbox, e.g. Bluthochzeit, Der Kaiser von Atlantis, etc. (There are more listed here.) My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so. If you all want to waste your time slugging it out over the issue (which mostly boils down to personal preferences), go ahead. I'm not going to get involved in these discussions any further. Please read Infobox redux above. Read all of it—it's not that long. It re-caps the story for those of you who did not participate in the discussions or in designing the box and are now objecting.

  As I said, there is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that while it is available, we do not recommend its use, or perhaps more accurately that there is no consensus among the members for its use. I've given my best shot at resolving this issue, which trust me, will not go away, whatever we do. Someone else can set up and monitor any future discussions, try to judge the consensus (if any), and then change the Article Guide. It won't be me. La vita è troppo bella e troppo breve. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don' read it as a mandate but an option. I use the option, I offer content, the author(s) get a feedback of how someone independent understands the article, I get reverted, I don't object. I am not used to ask permission for my edits, especially not when supported by a guideline. As a strong believer in structured information I suggest that we calmly and factually compare the pros of infobox vs. navbox (short for the collapsed box of operas by a composer, now traditionally in the right upper corner of opera articles where readers normally see an infobox). About the socalled OR, it was not my idea, but the observation (!) of another user.

Infobox vs. navbox

Pros for infobox:

• it supplies an image that gets close to the specific work, for example the composer at the time when he wrote it or a scene/stage from the opera
• it supplies a date in templated form {{start date}} that can be used for sort, compare, calculate, and that can be rendered in different forms, cultures and languages - a service beyond the English Misplaced Pages
• it supplies other key facts in structured form "at a glance" which is for some readers more accessible than prose
• it is site-consistent

Someone will be able to add the pros for the present navbox, besides "I like it" and "We always did it that way", then we can take a look. I don't intend to add any opera infoboxes right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

List of opera links in Template:Infobox operas

The list of Massenet's operas has been added to the infobox operas at La Navarraise. Having to edit this list in the infobox for every opera by Massenet is going to be quite tedious. I don't think this should be done this way. A single editable page with the list that can be included in Template:Infobox operas, probably via a named parameter should be created. But, since I don't see a consensus developing for the use of this template, perhaps that is a waste of time. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)