Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Opera: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:35, 4 April 2013 editVoceditenore (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers123,168 edits →Opera infobox proposed contents: typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:14, 9 January 2025 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers381,900 edits Undid revision 1268376392 by JJMC89 bot (talk) former pic then 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 135
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{skiptotoc}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Opera}}
}}
{{Archives|collapsed = yes|box-width=300px}}
{{-}}
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix">
<div> <div>
'''A selection of articles, new or otherwise interesting'''

'''Did you know ... related to opera ...'''
<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;"> <div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;">
]
]
</div> </div>
* ''']''', a ] performer against her family's wishes<!-- DYK Dec -->
{{*mp}}... that mezzo-soprano and voice teacher ''']''' ''(pictured)'', born 4 April 1863, was the daughter of ], who also taught ] and ]?
* ''']''', a soprano who excelled as ] and ] but after becoming a ] Christian pursued a life of service instead<!-- DYK 9 Jan -->
{{*mp}}... that ''']''', born 3 April 1949, was the first Mexican composer to have an opera produced in the U.S. when ] showed his '']'' in 1994?
* ''']''', a baritone who twice "sang himself out of his pants" during a performance at the ], according to '']''<!-- DYK 3 Jan-->
{{*mp}}... that conductor and opera house director ''']''', born 2 April 1905, said: "Tradition is what you resort to when you don't have the time and money to do it right."?
* ''']''', who developed the idea of ] in opera<!-- DYK 2 Jan 2025 -->

* ''']''', an operatic bass and Broadway musical star who became a comedian in ] in the comic duo Blake and Amber
</div><div>
{{-}}
'''Recent featured pictures...'''
<gallery mode=packed heights=120px>
<!--OLDEST-->
File:Geraldine Ulmar in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado - photograph only.jpg| ]
File:Elliott & Fry - photograph W. S. Gilbert.jpg|]
File:H.J. Whitlock - Photograph of Arthur Sullivan.jpg|]
Michael William Balfe - Atelier Nadar.jpg|]
File:Robert Jacob Hamerton - Poster for A Sensation Novel.jpg|'']''
File:Dudley Hardy - Poster for His Majesty.jpg|'']''
File:Percy Anderson - Poster for The Duchess of Dantzic.jpg|'']''
File:Fred Sullivan by Oliver Sarony.jpg|]
Philippe Chaperon by Atelier Nadar.jpg|]
File:George Grossmith as Reginald Bunthorne in Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience (1881).jpg|] in '']''
File:Falka - Weir Collection.jpg|'']''
File:Dudley Hardy - Poster for Basil Hood and Arthur Sullivan's The Rose of Persia.jpg |'']''
Claude Debussy by Atelier Nadar.jpg|]
File:Cover to Doris Waltz by P. Bucalossi after Alfred Cellier - Art by Nicholas Hanhart.jpg|'']''
File:Philippe Chaperon - Set design for Act V in the première of Victorin Joncières' Dimitri.jpg|'']'' (Act V set design)
<!--NEWEST-->
</gallery>
</div></div> </div></div>

:''']''' (by topic) &bull; ''']''' (by date)
<!-- (]) -->
{{-}} {{-}}
{| style="border: 1px solid #c0c090; width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em; background:white"
{{Collapse top|Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="background:#E6FFE6"
|style="text-align: left;" |<big>'''Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals'''</big> |style="text-align: left;" |<big>'''Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals'''</big>
''A simple script will automatically replace the text on the front page with the appropriate month when the time comes. Here are the next three months:'' ''A simple script will automatically replace the text on the front page with the appropriate month when the time comes. Here are the next three months:''
{{OotMProposed}}<!--This links to pages for the next three months of the OotM. I'm working at making any new red-links easier to use--> {{OotMProposed}}<!--This links to pages for the next three months of the OotM. I'm working at making any new red-links easier to use-->
|} |}
{{Collapse top|bg=#F8EABA|Project alerts}}
*''']''' has daily reports of issues (XfDs, PRODs, FACs, Peer Reviews, etc.) on all pages bannered with WikiProject Opera.
*''']''' lists new articles which may fall under the scope of the project. For articles that do fall within our scope, add {{tl|WikiProject Opera}} to the talk page. A selection of clean-up tags can be found ].
*''']''' has a daily list of all such articles. Tips on sourcing can be found ].
*''']''' lists all articles where an editor with a conflict of interest has requested an edit on the article's talk page. Note that this category is not currently differentiated by project.
{{Collapse bottom}} {{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|bg=#F2E0CE|Clean up project: Unsourced biographies of living persons}}
This is an ongoing project to reference any opera-related ] which currently lack any reliable sources.

''']''' has a list of all such articles which is updated daily. All Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to assist us. Tips on sourcing can be found ].
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|bg=#F2D291|Clean up project: Copyright violations}}
{{divbox|orange|Copyright clean up project|This is an ongoing and vital project to clean up what is potentially a significant number of opera-related articles with copyright violations both from the Grove reference books and from other sources. Please see our ] for details and how to help. Our purpose is to address a serious legal concern for Misplaced Pages and to maintain the integrity of articles under the scope of ].

All Misplaced Pages editors are encouraged to assist us.}}
{{Collapse bottom}}

{{Collapse top|bg=#CEE0F2|Article alerts}}
{{divbox|blue|Article alerts|<center>Members, please check our ] daily for reports of new issues with opera-related articles.}}
{{Collapse bottom}}


{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no|template=}}
{| cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 style="float:right;text-align:center;background:white;margin=5"
| align=center|]
|-
| ]
|-
| ]
|
|}

==Article creation and cleanup requests==
;Article requests
In a now about ], <font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 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 – ], ], ], ]
*Directors – ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*Designers – ], ], ].
*Opera - ] - A Rossini opera that was left unfinished

Per
*] (critic and opera scholar of '']'' and '']'' magazine)
] (]) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC) <small>(latest update 06:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC))</small>

'''Update:''' ] 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.
] (]) 13:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

'''Update:''' I think that I've more-or-less completed the '']'' article with some pretty good sources at hand, especially the Andrew Porter article kindly supplied to me by User:Voceditenore. However, I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions.] (]) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
;Cleanup requests
*Per , the following transwikied articles from the Italian Misplaced Pages need considerable clean-up:
:] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ] &bull; ]

*Per ] (needs copyediting and better referencing, too many "cherry-picked" quotes) and the ] recording section needs clean-up and pruning.

*Per , ] needs a better and more factual article with better referencing.

*], needs more inline citations, currently tagged with {{tl|more footnotes}}
*], needs more inline citations, currently tagged with {{tl|more footnotes}}


==Free subscriptions to databases== ==Free subscriptions to databases==
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
*] – apply ] for the next round
<small>'''Note''' Do not archive this section. ] (]) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)</small>
*] apply ] for the next round
*<s>] – apply ] for the next round</s> ("This partnership is currently not available. It is inactive but retained for historical interest")
*<s>] apply ] for the next round</s> ("HighBeam Research was a paid search engine and full text online archive ... In late 2018, the archive was shut down.")
*] apply ] for the next round *] apply ] for the next round
*] sign up for waiting list ] *<s>] sign up for waiting list ]</s> ("This partnership is currently not available. It is inactive but retained for historical interest")
*], an excellent resource, sign up ]
] (]) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) <small>Updated by ] (]) 07:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)</small>


== Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude? == == Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude? ==
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this . But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the ]. ] (]) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
<small>'''Note''' Do not archive this section. ] (]) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)</small>


As there has been no further discussion on this since early December 2010, I've archived this . But this is a topic we may want to revisit at some point, re expanding/clarifying the ]. ] (]) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
== Greetings from the German language Opera Project ==
:The latest discussion (January 2014) is archived . – ] (]) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, just wanted to say Hi! from the ]. 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 ], 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. --] (]) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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


==Articles needing libretto links== ==Articles needing libretto links==
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
<small>'''Note''' Do not archive this section. ] (]) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)</small>

Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on 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 ], as was done at , although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. ] (]) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Note that for now some of the Rossini librettos can still be accessed from the list on 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 ], as was done at , although it's a bit fiddly. If you add a new link, just strike through the opera name(s) below. ] (]) 16:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

::'''Help!''' Does anyone know how to access Karadar these days? It appears to be a dead link - and I've tried to get into it via a couple of ways. ] (]) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Hi ]. It appears to have disappeared in all its guises–.com, .org. and .it. I have a feeling they ran into copyright problems with some of their stuff. It's not showing up on Google searches at all and see . I have found which has links to zillions of libretti. Hopefully, you'll find the one(s) you're looking for. Best, ] (]) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
;List ;List
], ], <strike>]</strike>, <strike>]</strike>, <strike>]</strike>, <strike>]</strike>, ] (only score found), <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>,
<strike>]</strike>, ], ], ], ], <strike>]</strike> <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, ], <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>, <s>]</s>


==Requested opera templates==
==]==
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
Any objections to a split by nationality, e.g ]?♦ ] 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
:…which will no doubt re-ignite pointless discussions about many composers' "nationality". -- ] (]) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) <small>'''Note''' Do not archive this section. ] (]) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)</small>
::No objections to a split; disputes can be handled on an individual basis. There are 1,687 articles in the category - the benefits far outweigh the costs. –] (] &sdot; ]) 07:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::A less contraversial division might be by decade of birth. I look forward to your deciding which nationality to ascribe to Handel, a German writing Italian opera for an English market, and I wonder if, conceptually, opera predates nationality. Presumably most Italian opera was written before Italy existed. And then Mozart, too? Is he an Austrian opera composer? Austria didn't exist then. A German singspiel composer? I hope whoever decides to opts for this division will be happy to put the time into resolving the 1,687 potential individual disputes ]-] 08:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::What Michael and Almost-instinct said. Anything involving nationality or ethnicity on Misplaced Pages is going to cause massive headaches, especially combined with the blunt instrument which is categorisation. AFAIK technically, Stravinsky was a Russian opera composer when he wrote ''The Nightingale'', a French opera composer when he wrote ''Oedipus Rex'', and an American opera composer when he wrote ''The Rake's Progress''.--] (]) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::You are aware that an article can be in more than one category? –] (] &sdot; ]) 17:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that's possible, we certainly do that kind of stuff elsewhere. But if the category needs to be split (and it is very large), perhaps a less problematic split might be by century? ] (]) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


*Any further discussion on this? Otherwise, I'm going to archive in a couple of days. The question can always be re-visited. ] (]) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Archived at ]. ] (]) 09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Place new requests here. ] (]) 10:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
== On this day - did you know ==


== Almanacco Amadeus – Che disastro! ==
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.
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
*2 Feb ], ref tag
<small>'''Note''' Do not archive this section. ] (]) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)</small>


It's disappeared again. All links now redirect to . I'm keeping an eye out to see if the almanacco re-surfaces, but so far it's nowhere to be found on the new site. Grrrr! ] (]) 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
--] (]) 07:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


: It's finally available again: . --] (]) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, I've added her to the section at the very top of the page: ]. It's better to list them all in one place, so editors can see them all at a glance. I never archive that section, although I periodically update it. So she'll stay there 'til she's fixed. Best, ] (]) 10:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::I attempted to adapt ] to the new URL and its parameters; it seems to work. Lamentably, I discovered only later that ] had already modified ] similarly – that template hadn't been linked to the EN template via interwiki links (now corrected). -- ] (]) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
:Thank you! --] (]) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


*13 Feb ], 100 years today, do we know more? --] (]) 09:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) :::Thanks so much for that, ] and ]! Not only for the good news but for fixing the template too. Brilliant! ] (]) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


== Many new illustrations from Ricordi now available ==
*20 Feb ], 70 years, premiered in times of war. Orff did well to term it "Märchenoper" (Fairy tale opera) to evade censorship for text such as "Wer die Macht hat, hat das Recht, und wer das Recht hat, beugt es auch, und über allem herrscht Gewalt" (Whoever has the power, has justice, whoever has justice, bends it, and violence reigns everything). The article is too harmless. - The set designer just got a German article, {{ill|de|Helmut Jürgens}}. --] (]) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
<!-- ] 11:27, 31 August 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1882870074}}
As part of the ], the most important historical archive in Italy about music, we have just uploaded hundreds of new quality images: photos and portraits of musicians, sketches, drawings, illustrations of operas. Many Misplaced Pages articles will finally have an illustration! You can find all images in ] (]). Thank you in advance. --] (]) 16:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
:Thank YOU, ]. What a treasure trove! ] (]) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
: Looks great and promising! --] (]) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, many thanks for all these great images! Have added some of them to articles already.] (]) 20:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Marco Chemello (WMIT)}} Are there any images the Ricordi Archive would like a restoration done of? I'd be delighted to do a few in thanks. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.5% of all ]</sub></span> 04:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
:In the meantime, ]. Would have liked more resolution on that - featured pictures generally require 1500px on the smallest side, though that one's close enough it might slip through - but I've been wanting us to have a good pic of Puccini for ''years'', and am glad this lets that happen. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.5% of all ]</sub></span> 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


::Dear {{ping|Adam Cuerden}}, thank you for your interest and for your work! Most images requiring restoration are in the ], but the resolution is not high. We uploaded higher resolution images in the ] and ] categories, see if you find some interesting for you. --] (]) 08:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
*3 March ] found, birthday 15 March, can we expand her until then, as a woman in history (possibly not Beethoven's Elise)? --] (]) 11:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::I've loaded up my favourite dozen into my to-do list. Probably going to start with ]. I don't suppose you could beg them for a high-resolution image related to the Ricordis? ] looks like a decent choice. Although I'll also be doing ] <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.5% of all ]</sub></span> 02:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


:::Dear {{ping|Adam Cuerden}}, thank you. I'm asking Ricordi for some hi-res images, but it may require some time. Consider also some other group image like ] (some of them already used in articles). --] (]) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
== Stage band in ''Rigoletto'' ==


:::I shall be working through as many as I can manage. Just would feel odd to me to get this wonderful release and not do a restoration to celebrate what made the archive, y'know? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.5% of all ]</sub></span> 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
] includes "banda", with a redlink to ]. I have started a draft article, ] and would appreciate any elaboration by someone who knows the territory. My main call for help is at ].
<gallery mode=packed caption="Completed restorations. (] marks ])" heights=170px>
File:Giacomo Puccini (1924) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO003293 - Restoration.jpg|] ]
File:Gabrielle Ray (c. 1910) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO002691 - Restoration.jpg|] ]
File:Collina presso Nagasaki, bozzetto di Alexandre Bailly, Marcel Jambon per Madama Butterfly (1906) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000079 - Restoration.jpg|] '']'', act 1
File:Rosa Raisa (1917) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO002701 - Restoration.jpg|] ]
File:Wally (soprano), figurino di Adolf Hohenstein per La Wally (1892) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON004639 - Restoration.jpg|] '']'', act 1 costume for Wally.
File:Tavola 5, bozzetto di Gebrüder Brückner per Tannhäuser (s.d.) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON011721 - Restoration, crop.jpg|] '']'', act 3
File:Vasta spianata presso Courtray, bozzetto di Giuseppe Palanti per Edgar (s.d.) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000128 B.jpg|] '']'' (didn't need restoration)
File:Maria Carrara Verdi, Barberina Strepponi, Giuseppe Verdi, Giuditta Ricordi, Teresa Stolz, Umberto Campanari, Giulio Ricordi, Leopoldo Metlicovitz (1900) - Archivio storico Ricordi FOTO003107 - Restoration.jpg|] <small>'''Seated:''' ], ], ], and ]. '''Standing:''' ], ], ], and ]</small>
File:Amilcare Ponchielli (before 1886) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000794 - Restoration.jpg|] ]
File:Ricchi giardini nel Palazzo di Monforte a Palermo, bozzetto di Filippo Peroni per I Vespri siciliani (s.d.) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000132 - Restoration.jpg|'']'', act 5
File:Ciro Pinsuti (before 1888) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO001598 - Restoration.jpg|] (Much too small to be featured, but that mark on his nose annoyed me)
File:Napoli, strada Acquaquilia, bozzetto di Riccardo Salvadori per A Basso Porto (1894) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON002556.jpg|] '']'' (didn't need resyoration)
File:Al quartiere latino, bozzetto di Adolf Hohenstein per La Bohème (1896) - Archivio Storico Ricordi ICON000086 - Restoration.jpg|] '']'', act 2 set design
</gallery>


--] (]) 21:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) From these treasures, do we have something about operas by Rossini - Pacini - Respighi? --] (]) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
:<small>Minor nit: I think you created that page in the wrong namespace; you probably wanted to cteate it in ]. -- ] (]) 03:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you! As you can probably guess, I haven't used this namespace-for-draft-version method before, although I've done a lot of minor and middling contributing and editing. --] (]) 03:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)</small>


I think Rossini and Pacini are a little early. There was a ''Belfagor''image, but it was a mislabelled ''Il Piccolo do Haydn''. We can hope the real ''Belfagor'' is uploaded in the next batch. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.6% of all ]</sub></span> 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
:Verdi's middle-period operas used bandas a lot. So did Rossini and other composers of the era. I've expanded your draft at ] and added further sources. There is definitely enough now to move it into main space as a viable stub where it can be further expanded. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. ] (]) 15:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::''Belfagor'' is on the list for next. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup><sub>Has about 7.7% of all ]</sub></span>


== Kaoli Isshiki ==
::I know in ''Rigoletto'' and ''Traviata'' (and probably others) that these banda sections are unorchestrated - the idea being that the local house person (conductor?) would orchestrate the banda based on what was available at that particular venue. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this (though maybe it's in Gossett, or in the introduction to the critical edition of ''Rigoletto''). -- ] (]) 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is going on for ], a soprano from Japan based in France. -- ] (]) 17:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::Grove Opera has an article by ] entitled ] (linked in WP to ])‎. As well as ''Rigoletto'', there are stage bands in ''Ballo'', ''Wozzeck'' and ''Gloriana'', and Budden also points out that the 'banda' music in '']'' and '']'' was fully scored by their composers. --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 00:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


I had the rare chance to see this opera by ], - a great experience! -- ] (]) 23:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Does Budden use "Stage band" to include off-stage bands which are still part of the drama? ]-] 14:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes - he says "A group of instruments that perform on stage level, either behind the scenes or in view of the audience." Also, ]'s remarks above are supported by Budden - "the banda was under separate direction ... the bandmaster scored in detail what the composer wrote out on two staves ...". I'll add these bits and pieces after Voce moves the article into main space. --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to move the draft into main space, but need some thoughts about the primary title. I'm inclined to use ] as in the literature it is usually referred to by the Italian name, even in the Opera America glossary . I rather fear that ] will lead to a lot of people arriving there who are looking for something completely different. ] (]) 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
::Agree that "Stage band" will be confusing and "Banda (opera)" looks OK. There's currently a redirect entitled ] which may also muddy the water. "Banda" is the heading of the article in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, so it looks as if Budden is out of step. (There is also extra stuff in the OD of O that I can add to Budden's remarks). --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:::OK I've boldly moved it to ]. So get to work one and all.:) Best, ] (]) 18:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

*I think it'd also be helpful to include an image of a full score for an opera that includes music for banda, so that readers can see how it's written in separately. Any preferred operas? –] (] &sdot; ]) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
**For copyright reasons, of the ones listed, it'd have to be Rigoletto or La boheme, I think, unless there's an example that's clearer. (I have to admit I've seen La boheme a few times, and can't recall ever seeing or hearing a band onstage, but then, it's one of those operas that's default modernised.) Can anyone think of one where the banda is so important to the staging that it can't be avoided? Possibly Rossini? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 14:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
*Thanks to all of you knowledgeable folk. ] (]) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

==]==
]'']]
Saw the brilliant Scottish Opera performance of ''Werther'' the other day (better than most La boheme's I've seen!), and decided to try and finish the last and most difficult of the three Massenet restorations I've been working on. This poster was rather horrifically damaged. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 02:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

:This image (the poster for the premiere performance of '']'') is currently being discussed at ]. Click on the image for a bigger view. ] (]) 10:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::For comparison, the previous version of this image is at ]. ] (]) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:Mind you, we'll have to see whether this can pass FP. This is not a very pretty poster, one has to admit, so it's going to have to pass on Encyclopedic Value, which is pretty obviously quite high, but requires the FP crowd to read the necessary information about it instead of skimming over. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

*Promoted and now added to the ] rotation. Congratulations, Adam. ] (]) 09:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
**Thank you! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 13:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing I do wish - as much as I love Sullivan and Massenet - is that we could get a better variety of composers into the FP rotation there. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 06:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

:See my comment in the section about your latest nomination. We have 33 pictures in rotation, and they're quite varied. I also use a lot of FPs in the portal that depict other things than just posters or illustrations of actual operas. I use ones that depict settings, opera houses, people whose lives or works inspired operas etc. They're quite useful, as I can often get several operas mentioned per each picture and the whole point of the portal is to introduce the subject as widely as possible to readers. See, for example, ]. ] (]) 17:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

==Spelling Theatre/Theatre again==
Another move discussion at ] failed to make the point that it has long been the consensus at en.Misplaced Pages to spell the word "theatre", in part because theatre professionals prefer this spelling throughout the English-speaking world, and because this spelling it is not wrong anywhere, while "theater" is wrong in many places,such as the UK. Those who write about theatre, including New York theatre, should have been notified of the discussion at the obvious WikiProjects but were not. Note that nearly all of the ]s are called "X Theatre". I have now notified the Theatre and Musical theatre WikiProjects and this project of the discussion, and I hope that, even though we have gone over this again and again, editors will weigh in at ] (either way, of course) and demonstrate the consensus again. Thanks! -- ] (]) 03:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
:Well, going by the article, it's apparently officially zoned as the "Theater Subdistrict". Perhaps it might be best to just use that, since that spelling, at least, is presumably unambiguous. As for the other options... well, the admin messed up; the policy for ENGVAR is that where there's ambiguity, you use wherever the article got made first; you do '''not''' move it. The rest of the discussion now seems to be an attempt to block discussion of a bad admin action, and to make sure it's perpetuated. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 03:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

== Opera FPs ==

I'm running a bit low. Outside of a questionably-good one for ], a good ], and a very-hard-to-scan A2-size ], the only other thing on the table is some more ], and that one's getting a little illustration-heavy at that point. Anyone have any suggestions for good opera illustrations? Or, for that matter, have anything they could scan? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

== ] - Eyes please ==

We've got an IP, ], with a bee in their bonnet about her year of birth which is contrary to all reliable published sources and is "referencing" this stuff to genealogy websites and his own conjectures based a picture from Find-a-Grave. I'm the most recent editor to revert him. I've added 2 highly reliable published sources as an inline citation for the YoB and also added a section to ]. ] (]) 19:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

:Wow, that was fast. :-). And a special thanks to Antandrus for fixing the ref. Of all things, I had made a typo in the chapter title which reproduced the wrong date. Doh! ] (]) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

]
On which subject... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 04:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)]]

:This image has been nominated as a Featured Picture. The discussion is at ]. - ] (]) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:*Update: Promoted to Featured Picture and now added to the rotation at ]. Congratulations, Adam! ] (]) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you very much! What d'ye think of this, by the way?
:::Neat picture of ]. Opera stars always seemed to be on ocean liners in those days. If you could get that to FP, it would be great. The current lede image in the article is Fair Use, so that would have to go if this one is used. The one of him with his children is on Commons but has a ''very'' dubious copyright status. ] (]) 17:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I believe he was traveklling with Camille Saint-Saëns: There's pictures of him with a near-identical background. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 00:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

== Full linkage composer navboxes ==

I have noticed that ] has a preference for a type of navbox in the standard infobox position (e.g. {{tl|Verdi operas}} or {{tl|Handel oratorios}}) I have recently begun creating more complete footer style navboxes such as {{tl|George Frideric Handel}} and {{tl|Giuseppe Verdi}}. Was there a decision somewhere against footer style navboxes. Also, why do the biographies tend to have neither until I place mine on them?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:I can speak only for myself, but it happened only yesterday that I looked at ] and thought Handel should have a navbox. Thank you! Also for Verdi, of course! I will add Handel's to the other ], --] (]) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:I added Handel to the four articles assisting Messiah, and two to Handel Festivals (Halle, Göttingen), and added Verdi's non-operatic works. The article on '']'' is a challenge, politely speaking, in the year of his bicentenary, --] (]) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Please add each article to {{tl|George Frideric Handel}} when you add the template to the article.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Also, I would not mind some assistance arranging the templates as I create them. This Handel one seems particularly in need of organization.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

::As far as I know, we haven't had any discussions about full-linkage ones since I've been a member (2008). The current opera navboxes were originally developed in late 2006 . There were discussions (2009) and most recently (2011) about the opera navboxes and whether to make them horizontal footers or keep them as vertical headers. The general consensus was to keep them vertical, partly because of the immense amount of work required to change everything over + re-add {{tl|Italic title}} manually to all the articles switched to horizontal ones. Having said that, I kind of prefer the horizontal ones. They give much more flexibility as to what to use for the lead image. ] (]) 15:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I think many people who work a lot with classical and opera music are probably use to the infobox position. Many other users are trained to look for templates like these at the bottom of pages. If there are no issues, I will continue creating footer style templates.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that all the dropdown boxes are of single lists, eg Donizetti operas? Whereas the footers you are creating have multiple sections? If so, there's a natural distinction between the two, and thus current placings sees natural. ie imo it all looks good to me :-) ]-] 10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:I like the bottom navboxes, because they have greater flexibility for grouping than the narrow space where readers expect an infobox (hint hint). In {{tl|Franz Lehár}}, the mixture of English and German titles looks a bit strange to me. - I would like to add years to the works of Wagner and Handel, but - especially for Wagner - don't know which one to take, start of composition or premiere, sometimes that's a big difference, --] (]) 10:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::Isn't date usually the premier date, if available?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:::From ]: "As with other opera lists, the operas are arranged in '''chronological order by the date of first performance''', but date of composition may be used in individual cases if there is a significant gap between composition and first performance. What constitutes a ''significant'' gap will vary according to circumstances, but the most obvious examples are operas such as Eccles's '']'' which were first performed long after their composer's death." Best, ] (]) 13:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tony (and all), I've created ''']''' (a sub cat of ]) for the individual opera ones like {{tl|Carmen}} so we can can easily find them. I've changed to that cat for several of them, but I would appreciate it if you round up the rest and put them in that cat and use that for any future ones. It should only be used for ones of that type, though. Any others like templates for source works, e.g. {{tl|The Grapes of Wrath}} or individual composers, e.g. {{tl|Giuseppe Verdi}} should probably remain or be placed in the more general ] categories for now. ] (]) 14:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== CfD ] ==

This category and its 4 sub categories have been nominated for deletion. The discussion is ''']'''. ] (]) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:Per the discussion, deleted as well as all the subcats. ] (]) 16:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== New article for a new Scottish opera ==

I've just created ] - I've not done it as well as I hoped I might, so I would be grateful for heavy-handed polish! Creating a new article shouldn't be done late in the evening, I suppose ]-] 22:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:Since it won a South Bank Show award yesterday, there might be a DYK hook in there for people who like doing those. See the article for a link about that ]-] 22:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::It's looking good now. I've nominated it at ]. Mind you, it can take ages for it to get reviewed. They have quite a backlog. (I can't review it because I nominated it.) Many times I don't even bother nominating articles I've created because self-nominations require you to review another article before yours will be accepted. They've had so much rule-creep at DYK that reviewing can be a real pain. ] (]) 16:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

==Yet another opera-related image restoration==
]
Cover illustration by M. Browne and ] for the October 1, 1892 '']'', showing a scene from ] and ]'s '']''.

I'm going to be on-stage in ] next week, so I'm afraid the opera portal is likely to get some more Sullivan. Little bit worried that portal is getting dominated by Massenet and Sullivan, but, well, you know, there's only so much I can do alone, and I happen to have a lot of Massenet and Sullivan stuff. Hell, I have a few more illustrations to Le Cid yet to come, and there's already two FPs for that. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 13:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:*The image is being discussed for promotion to FP at ]. ] (]) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there will be a problem of overload at the portal. We now have 33 Featured Pictures in rotation at the portal. See ]. Currently, only 2 are G&S related, and 5 Massenet related (for 4 different operas), and they're all randomized. ] (]) 14:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, good. I didn't realise how few of the G&S FPs were part of the portal - that was an issue a few years ago, and I just presumed it was still the case. (That said, ] is probably the best of the G&S FPs, and might be worth adding.) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 20:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::For the record, it passed. =) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 23:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

== Opera navigation template usage ==

I have now made hundreds of multimedia templates. Previously, we discussed the usage of biographical footer style navboxes. I would like to encourage one additional consideration by this project. I find ] to be inconsistent with other projects in its template usage in terms of its most prominent works. Those works that have spawned the most topics notable enough to have wikipedia articles are welcomed on the pages of the authors in other related fields. E.g. at ] or ] you can see how other projects accept these templates on the author's pages. I have now created 10 traditional opera templates: {{tl|Der Ring des Nibelungen}}, {{tl|Parsifal}}, {{tl|Rigoletto}}, {{tl|Pagliacci}}, {{tl|Aida}}, {{tl|Carmen}}, {{tl|The Magic Flute}}, {{tl|Madama Butterfly}}, {{tl|The Tales of Hoffmann}}, {{tl|The Merry Widow}} and one Rock opera {{tl|Tommy}}. I have tried putting about five or six of these on the authors' pages, but have been rebuffed in the majority of my attempts. Can you explain the project's logic.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:Do you mean for example, adding {{tl|Rigoletto}} and {{tl|Aida}} to ]? I can see how some readers might find it useful, actually. As long as the templates are added in their collapsed state, I see nothing wrong with it all. Which composer articles have these individual opera templates been removed from? ] (]) 16:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::Might there be concern that eventually the Verdi page will have templates for Aida Rigoletto Otello Falstaff Traviata Trovatore Macbeth....you see, I'm sure, where I'm going here.... ]-] 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::P.S. if you want to see a stack like at Oscar Wilde, we would likely have to include Opera composer links in the main body of the template, for templates sourced from other media. E.g., the first line at {{tl|Ivanhoe}} would have to be changed to '']'' (]) · '']'' (]) · '']'' (]) · ] (]). That would take a lot of work and possibly some consensus along with people outside of OPERA. Don't think that is the way to go at this time or at least it is well beyond what I am trying to do now.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 23:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Yes, but as long as they're parked at the bottom and collapsed, they're harmless, and like I say, some readers could find them useful. ] (]) 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::First keep in mind that many of the operas that you mention are derivatives so the template would belong on the Shakespeare page and not the Opera author page. It is rare when the opera is considered the work most people are deriving from. Also, note that since Shakespeare page would have so many, the individual plays are not currently on that page. The most I have seen on a page has been at ]. About half of those were ones I created. At some point, I will probably talk with the Shakespeare folks about having 25 or 30 templates on the page, but that is another issue. IIRC, {{tl|Carmen}}, {{tl|The Magic Flute}}, {{tl|Madama Butterfly}} and {{tl|The Tales of Hoffmann}} have all been removed from the author pages. I don't think there are even 10 more source operas that have 4 or more notable derivative pages. Often when I do a notable opera, I end up with something like {{tl|Turandot}} that is not considered to be an opera source. For the few that are truly considered sources of other works, I think we should put them on the author pages. We should keep in mind that for many authors, their greatest operas are derivatives of other sources, which may explain confusion about why this policy is different for operas.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::P.S. I ususally use autocollapse, which means it will collapse in the presence of another template. All of these authors should have biographical templates including all their great works. So these additional templates should collapse.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::Wow! I'll be interested to hear what the Shakespeare folks have to say when you propose adding 25 or 30 templates to the Bard's page. :) Yes, I see what you're getting at in terms of which ones you suggest putting on the composer's page. I don't have a problem with it but I'd suggest that when used on any opera or composer page, they be collapsed by default, regardless of the presence of another template. ] (]) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
{{od}}I am going to get feedback from {{user|Melodia}} who has removed {{tl|Carmen}} from ], {{tl|The Magic Flute}} from ] and {{tl|The Tales of Hoffmann}} from ] and {{user|Michael Bednarek}} who removed {{tl|Madama Butterfly}} from ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{Querylink|Giacomo Puccini|qs=&diff=519522950&oldid=519513995|I removed}} the template {{Tl|Madama Butterfly}} from ]'s article because I don't see how this template (please look at it) can contribute any meaningful information to Puccini's biography. On the contrary, it will contribute to navbox clutter, especially if such work templates are added in large numbers to biographies. I don't think such clutter is more acceptable because it appears at the bottom of articles. The collection at Wilde and Dostoyevsky does nothing to convince me otherwise. In short, I don't believe in the goal of ]; instead, I'm wary of ].
:Returning to some earlier arguments: How are these templates "multimedia" templates? An author's most notable works are invariably mentioned in the narration; less notable works are mentioned either in a section "List of works" or in a separate page mentioned in the biography. -- ] (]) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
::I am with ] on this. He poses the essential question: what does this template add to Puccini's biography? Answer - nothing. And a template for each of his operas (even for only the most popular ones) on his biography page would be simply clutter, encouraging the first-time reader to get lost, rather than to understand the topic of the article. The aim of Wikipeida is after all to be an on-line ], not a version of ].--] (]) 07:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:::In general I like these boxes at the bottom of pages, when collapsed, but I'm in agreement with the general argument that boxes relating to individual works belong on those pages, and not on the author/composer's page. (In the opposite direction, I can imagine that a box relating to a composer being suitable for the page for one of their creations) ]-] 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
::::A thin horizontal bar at the very foot of an article page (not even at the end of the article itself) hardly qualifies as "clutter", even if there were 5 or 6 of them. They do not interfere in any way with the article's image layout or the flow of the prose and sections. I also find it hard to see how they can "distract" the reader from reading the article. You only come to them when you have gone through the whole article right to the bottom of the page. And let's suppose the reader gets to the end of the article page and wants to follow up something they've read there. It's a lot easier to click on the navbox than to go back through the article to find the wikilink again. The only issue that might arise is if the article is very long and heavily illustrated. Having more than a few navboxes at the end might conceivably affect page loading time, but that's about it. I really cannot understand the opposition to something so innocuous and unobtrusive that could be of benefit to some readers and/or pique their interest in related subjects. ] (]) 10:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::As the template creator, I am obviously a supporter of their inclusion. There is data that provides the answer to whether people on the biography pages click through to derivative work from the templates. I don't have access to that data. However, anyone who does, actually can say whether multimedia templates are useful. I don't actually know, but I find them useful. I believe people are interested in adaptations of an author's work. That is my guess. As for {{user|Michael Bednarek}}'s question "How are these templates 'multimedia' templates?", either he or I misunderstands the term. The template he removed contains a variety of media types (plays, music, literature, film, musicals and operas). Maybe I am not understanding MB's point, but that seems to fall squarely in the multimedia class.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I would leave the templates with the pieces, as the info seems too distant from the biography of the opera composer, --] (]) 15:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::@TonyTheTiger: I understand the term "]" as "content that uses a combination of different ]s", not as a list of "a variety of media types". -- ] (]) 09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::What is the proper word for the various types of ways a work could be adapted (book, play, opera, musical, comic, song, etc.). I think the one that I have created with the most various ways is {{tl|Cinderella}}, although for opera-sourced ones, my best example is {{tl|Carmen}} with film, musical, ballet, album and song adaptations and novella source. What is the name for the variety of types of adapted works.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::P.S. I confess that my source for the term is the ]. They use to have a term called book rate for a postal charge scale relating to sending books. Then they expanded the term to include CDs and DVDs and such and called it media mail rate. They use the term media for books, CDs and DVDs. Thus, I use the term for books, plays, movies, video games, etc. I don't know what the proper term is but would love to be corrected so I don't advertise my idiocy.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break for navigation===
We seem to be getting away from the point as to ''whether these templates are appropriate for the biography articles''. No one seems yet to have given an positive rationale for this. I can see that they are appropriate for the works themselves and the other topics mentioned in the template - many of which have little or nothing to do with the biography. As ] points out, the template which ] removed 'contains a variety of media types (plays, music, literature, film, musicals and operas)' - none of which illuminate the life of Puccini. Some of them might- conceivably - relate to critical or cultural reception of Puccini, but there is no mention of any of this in the article itself. And indeed the template is not, as it is headed, about 'Giacomo Puccini's Madama Butterfly' - it is about the subject of 'Madam Butterfly' in general, and (I wilingly concede) very interesting in that context. Maybe the issue here is in fact the '''titles''' of ]'s templates - the contents of the templates themselves do not actually correspond to their titles.--] (]) 14:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:It's not just the titles that are potentially misleading. I haven't got time to check the growing number of these horizontal navboxes for individual operas. But from what I've seen so far, so many of them have been problematic, that every single one needs to be checked. Today's ] was a mess. It listed ] as an opera, when it is nothing of the kind. And what does that field "Operas" mean? Operas based on Mozart's opera? Operas using the same libretto? Operas using the same libretto source? Operas vaguely similar in some aspect of the plot? Ditto for the field "Literature". What does that mean? I removed ] which has only the vaguest of similarities in plot, and quotes one reviewer who said he thought he saw similarities. Also what is that template doing in ]? Can we at least have all these navboxes for individual operas in one consistent and bespoke category so we can find them and gradually check them all for accuracy, consistency, and usability? Until that is done, I am now totally against adding these as footers to ''any'' opera composer articles. ] (]) 17:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::I am not an opera virtuoso, scholar or student. Please forgive my ] effort to classify ] as an opera. Yes today I deployed {{tl|Don Juan}} and {{tl|Don Giovanni}}. In '']'', the author claims it is a retelling of ''Don Giovanni''. I think it should be restored to the template for the good of the reader for this reason. I could be wrong. It could be as different as '']'' and '']'' but note that the former is on the template for the latter. With this in mind and given the author's intent, I think it is consistent with WP general policy for me to restore this to the template.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Tony, I don't question your good faith at all, and as I said these templates are potentially useful in theory. But the fact remains that they are problematic and all of them need to be checked and cross-checked for consistency of the field names used, care that the field names are not misleading, and that what you're adding to any field is accurate. It's important to read an article all the way through, and if necessary follow up the other links in it before adding it to a particular field or even adding it all, as in the case of ]. This is especially important if you're creating templates in a subject area where you don't have particular expertise. As far as I know, we're not in a race here or under some kind of deadline, so why not take the time to do them slowly and properly? Re the novel, '']'', the plot never even approaches the similarity between ''West Side Story'' and Shakespeare's R & J and the evidence for what those similarities are is vague and flimsy. Add it back if you think it's important, but what do you mean by the "Literature" field you had added it to. What does literature mean in that context? It's not at all clear to me, and I'm speaking as a reader in this case. Any novel, poem, play, etc. that shows even the vaguest similarity to the plot of '']''? Any literature which contains an allusion to the opera or its title? Any literature which might have been the source for the libretto? ] (]) 18:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::At this point I have made about 200-300 of what I call multimedia templates (See ]). Loose adaptations are always a judgement call. There are often cases where something is a parody or adaptation of 4 or 5 different things. I don't include those on a template. I don't include things that are only linked by title in most cases, although {{tl|Casanova}} is a bit of an exception. In some cases the article is so thin, the title is almost all that I have to go by (E.g, '']'' and '']''). Again this is a judgment call. Oddly, the most consistently difficult decisions seem to be episodes of '']'' because its seems a vast proportion of the shows are parodying famous literature. However, the shows often parody three or four different works in the same show. I have not actually been that consistent/careful with my field names. E.g., sometimes operas, musicals, ballets, and/or plays might all get lumped under stage and in other cases each has enough works for its own separate field.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
===Improving the templates===
Tony, to be genuinely useful to the reader these templates need to be a lot more consistently and transparently organized. I'll take ''Carmen'' as a example. I'm going to paste it below in its expanded state for ease of seeing what my commentary is referring to:
{{Carmen|state=expanded}}

The fields are not in any kind of logical order and confuse the reader as to what articles are strictly about aspects of the actual opera and which are adaptations in some way. The first field should be "Music", but should only contain articles like the Discography, individual recordings of the opera <u>as Bizet wrote it</u>, and the individual arias. The second should be "Source". The third should be "Adaptations", subdivided alphabetically by "Film", "Instrumental", and "Stage". In this respect '']'' and ] belong under "Instrumental" adaptations, not under "Music". The last field should be "Related" with '']'' moved out of there to "Instrumental" adaptations. ] (]) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Another example:
{{Pagliacci|state=expanded}}
Why do you have the discography and the aria under two different headings when in ''Carmen'', they are both under "Music". And again, fields which are the most relevant to the actual opera should come first, not the film adaptations. ] (]) 14:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I had a look at {{tl|Madama Butterfly}} again. It's got the same problems of rather illogical order of fields as the other two, but also contained some errors which are so egregious that I've gone ahead and corrected them , , . Really, we can't mislead readers like that. ] (]) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

== Use Navbox in Infobox==
{{Infobox person
| image = File:Vivaldi.jpg
| alt = portrait of Antonio Vivaldi
| caption = ]
| name = Orlando furioso
| module = ]
}}
Now that we have great composer navboxes, I suggest we make them more visible. In ], I tried to replace the collapsed list of Vivaldis operas by a link to the navbox which supplies much more, - please discuss --] (]) 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:In ] I tried adding a bit about the work, --] (]) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
:In order to see how it would work and discuss, look at --] (]) 07:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I have reverted the box on ] and pasting it here, so people can see what it looked like). First, to the reader who knows little or nothing about the subject, it could be read as the person in the image being someone named Orlando Furioso. Secondly, the self-referencing to direct the reader to another navbox at the bottom of the page "More about the composer" is wildly inappropriate in my view. The hyperlink on Antonio Vivaldi in the first sentence of the lede takes the reader to much more "More about the composer", not simply to a list of articles about his work with no explanation whatsoever about '''him''', i.e. the navbox. If the footer navboxes are useful, people will use them. You don't use the head of the article to send the reader to the bottom of it. There's no need to add that to the image of the composer. There is a reason why those composer navboxes are used in this way in articles about their operas. It is to provide the list of their operas in chronological order which helps set the current one in context and provides quick links at the top of the page, and that was the previous consensus. Also, I do not agree that the composer navboxes are "great". They are OK, but somewhat inconsistent between themselves, and in the past, I have found several of the ones by TT, mostly on the individual operas to be actually wrong or misleading in places.

As for ] (which I also reverted), what you are doing there is basically making a big change that affects all opera articles—unilaterally adding an opera infobox which has a completely different function (although you used infobox person for ''Orlando Furioso''). I'm not necessarily against that, provided there is a consensus here to to start changing all the opera articles to something like this, but it's a big change, which affects all the articles about operas, and in the transition stage, there will be big inconsistencies across our articles. If you want to do that, and I know you are keen to add infoboxes in general to virtually every kind of article, then it needs to be discussed in a separate section here. See below. ] (]) 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for discussing a test (see below also), you have to imagine the link to the navbox because it's not on this page, or look at the previous version where you can try it. I think it might be a way to have less info at the top, but still point out that it's there, but am not passionate about it ;) --] (]) 08:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:ps: we have now a lot of comment on infoboxes in the navbox-section, also the other way - if split, can we really split? --] (]) 08:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::Yes we can split it and we should split it into something more focused and explicit. What you were proposing in this section was not simply the addition of something to an existing infobox. You are proposing a ''complete'' change of a long-standing practice, i.e. the invention of a new infobox and replacing the traditional navbox with the composer's image with this new box on every article that has one of TT's horizontal multi-article footer templates. The general principle needs to be discussed in the section below and simultaneously at ] what sorts of fields would be appropriate on a potential Opera infobox with the latter discussion used to inform the general discussion. It should not be done via changing two articles unilaterally and presenting it as a ''fait accompli''. ] (]) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::''Comment below moved from '''Opera infoboxes''' section''
:::I don't know what you will resolve with this issue, but I have a list of composers for whom I intend to create footer templates. I have already created {{tl|Franz Lehár}}, {{tl|Jacques Offenbach}}, {{tl|Georges Bizet}}, {{tl|Giacomo Puccini}}, {{tl|Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{tl|George Frideric Handel}}, {{tl|Antonio Vivaldi}}, {{tl|Gioachino Rossini}} They include most of the major composers who don't already have them: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::''Comment below moved from '''Opera infoboxes''' section''
::::Tony, what you do with these templates is basically irrelevant to any decisions we make about opera-infoboxes. (More on this in the section below ]). However, you will have to expect that where editors find them unhelpful or misleading in particular articles about operas or their composers, they will be removed. I also seriously question why you are planning to plow full-steam ahead with creating yet more of these, when the current ones are currently so inconsistent and in some cases quite error filled and misleading. What is the rush? Why not work on the current ones you've made to address the issues that have been pointed out to you? Whatever you do, will you please place all of them in a single category, so they can be easily accessed. ] (]) 09:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::''Comment below moved from '''Opera infoboxes''' section''
:::::It is not a rush. I have done almost every other source subject. Operas are mostly all I have left (except maybe ballets). They are not any less likely to have errors should I wait. I am not taking any opera courses right now. I am still going to open articles like '']'' and think they are about operas.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::''Comment below moved from '''Opera infoboxes''' section''
:::::::I like the navboxes on the composers. Look at {{tl|Johann Sebastian Bach}} - a lot at one glance. I would see no way to arrange the same in an infobox (that's why I still a connection would be worth thinking about, but there's time), --] (]) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::The Bach navbox is useful—for navigation and to give an idea what Misplaced Pages articles are available in a compact space, albeit with very small lettering. As for a "connection", a connection from where? Certainly not an infobox on the ] biography. Even if it were to acquire one, ] has 500 times the information as that navigation template. That's what should be linked to in the infobox. Once again, it does a terrible disservice to the reader to immediately send them from the top of the page to the bottom to see a bunch of wiki links with very scant actual information, apart from the dates of a few of his works, infinitely less information than that List. ] (]) 12:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I agree that the list of Bach's compositions has much more information, and I would certainly want to link to it, but the navbox provides a more concentrated idea of a timeline of his works, - why not have that also, for example as {{tl|Johann Sebastian Bach}} instead of a link to the bottom? --] (]) 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{outdent}} Gerda, are you now simply arguing for keeping these navboxes on the article pages? If so, I'm fine with that, although some editors consider them "clutter", I don't, provided they're collapsed, and I suggest you slug it out on the article talk pages. If you are still arguing that the navbox should also be linked from the infobox, well, no. It's absurd, and a great disservice to the reader. If you want to provide a condensed timeline of Bach's works in an infobox, then do so properly (in a collapsed cell, obviously), provided you can get people to agree to it, and indeed can get people to agree to an infobox there in the first place.

:Ditto for infoboxes in any other articles about composers or individual works, although providing a timeline of the composer's work is even more inappropriate in an infobox about only one of his works. Readers are not morons. If they want to know properly referenced details about the composer himself, they can simply click on his name in the infobox. However, if you think they would also benefit from quick access to a complete list of the composer's works with concise but real details, properly referenced, then provide the link to that page in the infobox. If they're interested, they'll click on it.

:If readers want to know every article on Misplaced Pages remotely related to a composer or a work, they will look at the navbox at the bottom of the page. These footer navboxes are very common on Misplaced Pages pages. Readers are not morons. They will find them, whether they read English or not. If the navbox is useful to them, they'll click on the links in it. You don't need an infobox (or anything else on the page) to say "Hey, check out the navbox at the bottom." Sending the reader, under the false promise of "more details" or "more information", from the infobox straight to yet another box <u>on the same page</u> with no real information apart from a few dates and labels, does not help them understand the subject of the article, or even the key facts about that subject. ] (]) 12:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

::Our now discussing Bach on the Opera Project page is just one example of many of the sideways / irrelevant moves that we've seen recently in our musings. Does the principle of Undue Weight apply to talk pages as well as articles themselves? ]-] 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I think it might do, and it is rather wearying. ;-) But although Gerda used Bach as an example, the same thing applies to Wagner, Handel, Vivaldi, etc., which (alas!) ''are'' relevant here. ] (]) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Sorry for Bach, it's his birthday ;) - substitute Wagner, for this project, --] (]) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we '''please''' keep further comments about these navboxes in this section only. They are off-topic in the discussion about Opera Infoboxes. They simply muddy the waters in an already lengthy and complicated topic. ] (]) 14:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:I made a comment about this subject on the Jacques Offenbach talk page several weeks ago but only one person replied. I agree with those who don’t see any point in these horizontal templates. As for info boxes, as someone says below, these will merely recap the first sentence or two of the article. A lot of this seems part of the obsession with trying to force everything into categories, pigeon-holes or reduce works of art to keywords. I believe the world is not like that. (Apologies, I realise this discussion has moved on.) ] (]) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

==Opera infoboxes==
{{Infobox musical composition
| Name = Motezuma
| Cover = Vivaldi.jpg
| Alt = portrait of Antonio Vivaldi
| Caption = ]
| Composer = ]
| Year = {{Start date|1733}}
| Type = ] in three acts
| Period = ]
| Style =
| Composed =
| Text = ]
| Published =
| Scoring: =
| Solo =
| Choir =
| Instruments =
| Premiere date = {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1733|11|14|df=y}}|location=], Venice}}
| Premiere conductor =
| Premiere location =
| Premiere performers =
}}
I am re-opening this subject, previously discussed (2009) and most recently (2011), as to whether we should begin changing over opera articles to have an infobox about the opera at the top of the page, and navboxes for the composer's works at the bottom of the page. The one at the right is an example. ] (]) 07:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for discussing, it is no more than that, with the wording more a placeholder than anything else. I would like to point out at the top of an article that a lot more is available at the bottom, - how can we do that best - or do people know? I could imagine to add some vital information in an infobox, therefore I combined the ideas, --] (]) 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

::It's inappropriate to "tell" the reader something like that and to "advertise" what else is on the page. The reader will scroll to the bottom if they are interested. That really is clutter, and it's both distracting and misleading. As I said before, the hyperlink to the composer in the lede or in the currently used composer navbox at the top takes you to the article which tells the reader more about Vivaldi. The box tells them ''nothing'' about Vivaldi except which articles Misplaced Pages has on some of his compositions. It has some potentially useful information about what is in Misplaced Pages about him, but in no way would I describe it as "vital information". ] and ] has vital information, properly documented—not that footer navbox. And for the operas, which would be relegated to the footer, they are far less easy to read (much smaller print), and see in chronological order than the current navbox devoted solely to his operas which is currently on the top of the page. Even if we were to switch to infoboxes about each individual opera, I would be very against adding the anchor link you propose. ] (]) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::"If they are interested", readers will scroll, - I wonder how many only see the top, and wish I could interest some of those in more. I meant the word "vital" only for the infobox, not the navbox, did I say that wrong? --] (]) 08:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::No, it's not remotely "vital information" for any proposed opera infobox. The vital information would be links to ] and ]. If the proposed opera infobox links to the proper complete lists of his works, they will see them right away. The footer navbox is just that, yet another navigation aid for someone who potentially wants one but of no educational value. It has no vital information about either Vivaldi or the works listed in it. Therefore, the link actually misleads the reader. Incidentally, the guidelines on infoboxes are to not use them to navigate to sections of the page itself. ] (]) 08:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}} As for the box you are currently proposing, Gerda, "Text" is wrong for that field, it should be "Libretto". But that and the anchor link to the the footer navbox are issues to be left for when there is a consensus, if any, to switch over to these kinds of boxes. So I suggest we keep to that topic first. It's a big change and involves a lot of work for the editors here, and that's what needs discussion first, not what to put in it. ] (]) 08:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:We had a misunderstanding. I had the idea (see above) that if we have a broad list about a composer in a navbox, we don't have to repeat his operas on top, and would win room for some information about that particular opera. But if we don't do that - and I see good reasons not to do it, - forget that. I was talking only about composers for whom we have a navbox, such as Handel, --] (]) 09:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::My attitude in this matter is perfectly expressed by quoting Voceditenore from the above-linked 2011 discussion: "I don't think it would be practical to start changing the navboxes to horizontal and ditto developing an opera infobox. There are just too many current navboxes that would have to be changed, not to mention the time-sink involved in developing and agreeing on an opera infobox, for not much gain in terms of actually improving articles themselves." -- ] (]) 09:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:::I understood what you were on about, Gerda, but you were simultaneously doing that by adding a whole new type of infobox at the top of articles, and one which incidentally removed the {{tl|italic title}} format. For now, I do not think the current box is necessarily redundant. However, I actually think it might be a good idea to switch over to a well-designed opera infobox for some or possibly all articles, and it would be a useful and timely discussion to have. But we need to discuss the general principal first, because it's quite a big change. I don't think it's a good idea or helpful to just randomly add them to two articles and then have a diffuse conversation about what's in the ones you added. I've contacted all the OP members who have participated at least once on this talk page in the last year and invited them to the discussion. We need lots of views, not least because changing over also means potentially quite a lot of extra work. But once again, the discussion in this section should be about the general principle first, and not about how to advertise the footer navboxes to the readers. ] (]) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need both a date and a "period"? Presumably our definitions of periods are going to be following the usual 1600-1750-1830-1900 rubbish, as if Vivaldi's opera had more to do with Orfeo than with Mozart opera seria. I suggest that if people wants us to discuss the introduction of opera infoboxes they go away and design a good one, thinking carefully about what fields are suitable (interesting and factual fields) and they present it. This constant swamping of this page with this topic is becoming a HUGE distraction ]-] 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:(ec) How would you suggest some people "go away"? - Classical music is discussing "orchestra", collecting needed fields first, now a sample is built and is under discussion. Perhaps wait for a model there? --] (]) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::See my comment below, Gerda, re ]. First of all, this is not WikiProject Classical music and what they do there and how they discuss it is up to them. Secondly, the proposal there is to change an existing infobox, already in many articles. You are proposing a very big change and that we go ahead and develop an infobox which has never been in ''any'' opera articles. I would personally prefer a more methodical and gradual approach via discussing the general principle first. ] (]) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not necessarily against a navbox if it is kept simple. A few points at this stage, based on the example given - please take a look at the template specifications in edit, as some of the points I mention below are not visible in the example as it shows:
* Why premiere conductor, place, performers, etc? These are typically better laid out in the 'roles' box in the article. You open endless pointless debate about e.g. which performers to include.
* Why portrait of composer? Isn't it better to show a scene from the opera, or a page from its score or whatever, if available? The article is after all about the opera. If nothing form the opera avaialble, then there should be no pic.
* 'Period' and 'Style' - again, potential prompts for endless pointless squabbling; if the article is any good it will contextualise this issue appropriately. Forget it for a navbox.
* Scoring, solo, choir, instruments - why? Such detailed info belongs to the article.
* Published - does this mean date? or publisher? But in any case, so what? Irrelevant for a navbox; forget it.
* 'Text' should of course be 'libretto' as per Voceditenore.
An infobox on these lines would I think be non-intrusive, broadly non-controversial and would meet ].--] (]) 10:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:I took the existing infobox musical composition as it is, as I am better with examples than theory, subject to discussion. The fields don't have to be filled everytime. I used it for an article mentioning the premiere only as a fact, without artists, ], --] (]) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of first paragraphs, not infoboxes (not in this topic area anyway). As I've repeatedly stated, prose is so much more flexible and accurate than a standardised, Procrustean "bucket full o'factoids" in the right-hand corner. Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument - in fact, any argument at all - why people are incapable of reading the opening sentences of an article. Also, infoboxes on short or stub articles would be ridiculous, merely repeating the content of the article in quadrilateral form.--] (]) 10:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Some people are incapable of reading English prose, but able to understand keywords. I agree that having for example a premiere date marked as such in the text by an invisible keyword, and showing its day/month/year in numbers hidden, but words to be seen, would be even better, but we are not there yet --] (]) 10:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::"Some people are incapable of reading English prose". Oh really? Isn't there a ] for such hypothetical people anyway? --] (]) 10:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::<small>Hee Hee. I have a secret life . ] (]) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)</small>
:::::It is, but doesn't help people who want to take the key facts to one of the many Misplaced Pages languages around the globe. --] (]) 10:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::What? What does this even mean? If people can't read English, then there are Wikipedias in dozens and dozens of other languages.--] (]) 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::How many languages have Vivaldi's ''Motezuma'' or Wagner's ''Tannhäuser''? How many could more easily assemble a decent stub in their language and an interwiki-link if we supplied basic data in an infobox? --] (]) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::This is ''English'' Misplaced Pages. It's written in ''English'' prose. It's for users who speak ''English''. I've engaged in plenty of cross-Wiki collaborations with foreign-language editors, but it's been through the medium of speaking to each other and making sure information was accurate and sourced, not through infoboxes. Don't even get me started on the problems of machine translation...Bottom line is, if you can't speak English, you can't use English Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 14:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::I've started ] for editors who wish to monkey around with different styles and discuss the parameters a potential opera infobox should have. I tend to agree with Almost-instinct, that the minutiae of what to go in it should be worked out separately and then proposed here once (if) there is a general agreement amongst the editors that having an opera infobox in some or all articles is worthwhile idea. As per Michael and Smerus, I think working on that separate page would be a real eye-opener as to just how much of a time-sink working out an acceptable one can be for editors who want it to meet ] and those who want a second vertical article running down the side of the page. So please, no more pasting of different versions of a potential box on this page, and no more random experiments in article space. I personally find the latter very disruptive. Simply discuss here whether in principle it's worth pursuing and ultimately switching over some articles to this type of infobox. Then, we can discuss the one that's on offer. ] (]) 10:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Moved to ]. I've started a draft at {{tl|Infobox opera}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, folks, let's step back for a minute; this thing shows signs of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite more than one admonition, we're seeing a lot of "what should be in the box/why is that in the box/shouldn't that part of the box be phrased differently?" cart before much of any "do we even want to do this?" horse. For my part, I'm not so sure. On the one hand, there's no doubt that boxes add visual interest to the articles in which they appear. On the other, as has been noted, developing them and adding them systematically to all the opera articles in Misplaced Pages promises to be a task like tidying up the Augean stables. So:
*Aside from some modest cosmetic improvements, what's the universe of things we think adding boxes could do to improve articles?
*Within that universe, what do we ''want'' them to do?
*Within ''that'' universe, what is ''practical'' for them to do?
*And is that benefit worth the investment of time and effort and the discord that inevitably will ensue?
Please--if we don't have clear objectives and expectations in mind, this initiative promises to degenerate into another of those periodic pointless infobox brouhahas that have sapped so much time and energy to so little point over the past several years. ] (]) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

:Purpose, style, approach, considerations and much more are ], if they are really not known. - "Adding them to all opera articles" is not the question I see, but that a standard should be thoughtful even if added to only a few. (It's easy for me to say so, because I didn't suffer the "past several years". I am new to the topic, with a history of fighting infoboxes.) Here's my what ] data means, mentioned in the purpose section. --] (]) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::Fankly, I have little patience with trying to follow these long discussions. I'd rather be working on articles - and, heaven knows, there's plenty of work to do there!
::Even if we determine that there are good reasons for adding these boxes, is the expenditure of energy not better spent on getting the articles themselves improved? Can't say I'm a fan of adding them. ] (]) 23:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension; no-one is going to make you, or any other disinterested editor, add any template, anywhere. You will remain free to edit as you do now. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

*'''Note:''' I have moved the latest comments from Tony, myself and Gerda out of this section. They are now in the '''Use Navbox''' where they belong. Please keep that discussion there. ] (]) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

=== In Re All of the Above ===

I am inspired by the very sane comments of Dr. Hoehl to make the following points:

1) This is an Opera Project. I am not interested in the insane proposals to weld all the world's knowledge into a virtual nugget, and if I were, there are other platforms in which I could discuss it. In fact all that can be said on this futile topic was brilliantly dealt with 150 years ago by George Eliot in her portrait of Dr. Casaubon in Middlemarch - go read it if you haven't. I therefore suggest that the next person who mentions 'granularity' (yes, I mean you, Gerda), or who attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere out there, is suspended from this project for a period ranging from one femasecond to numerous millenia. This may be ], but I suggest that 95%+ of the regular editors in this project are interested in opera and wish to write about opera. And don't give a f**k about metadata. As it has been made abundantly clear that the use of infoboxes is neither mandatory nor forbidden, regardless of trending geekery in the world of WP, that I think gives this project grounds for setting this aspect aside permanently.

2) Looking at the Orlando Furiosi, (where the question in hand was, aazingly, resolved as far as it went), I note that these operas (and many others) now have the same information twice, the picture template at the top and the flat template at the bottom. One of these, at least, is redundant and therefore clutter. Can we develop a policy as to which should stay? If the flat template stays (in Vivaldi and elsewhere), I see no intrinsic objection to a modest infobox at top right hand corner, which would be no more intrusive that the existing template. Any attempt to make such a box rival the article with more than very basic information however would be ridiculous. I have made my suggestions as to what such an infobox might contain in the appropriate place and am entirely content (of course!) in any case, to go with the wishes of the project as a whole.

3) As regards the efforts of Tony the Tiger, these really seem to me to be on the level of graffiti. They are are, as I have indicated above, mistitled. There can be no rational justification for a template to contain (for example) both a discography of Puccini's 'Madame Butterfly' and a Broadway show on a similar storyline. You could indeed have a template for the 'Madame Butterfly' storyline and its various incarnations, but it wouldn't belong in an article on Puccini, and wouldn't include the opera discography. And so on for all the others. If TtT has an obsession with disseminating his inspirations in this way, then unfortunately it falls to us to clean up after him, so far as it affects this project, unless we seek more extreme sanctions.

Пока - --] (]) 07:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:] and like to share it with the world, KISS. Your "2)" expressed my thoughts better than I could express them, thank you!
:ps: I will not have to repeat "granular" because I trust you (y'all) got it the first time ;) --] (]) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, I agree with everything you've said, with an extra set of kudos for your point 1. :-) See below for a suggestion about how we might go forward. ] (]) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

===Opera infoboxes. Does this sound like a plan?===

I have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed about the time-sink this represents. It has so far taken up all the time I wanted to spend working on the Women's History Month articles, and I'd be fibbing if I said I didn't resent it somewhat. But it has been landed on our plate whether we like it or not, and I'd like this project to be able to return as quickly as possible to what we do best, providing a friendly, relatively stress-free place where we can support each other in writing and improving articles.

My reading of the views so far is that editors here are not completely against opera infoboxes. Some see positive value (in varying degrees). The rest don't see any particular value in them, but are open to them. Virtually all of us have several important provisos:
*The fields should be strictly limited to key facts. These should not become vertical articles, filled with more and more detail.
*Our first duty is to the readers of the English Misplaced Pages. Our articles and their contents should not be skewed to accommodate people who can't read English (or can't read at all) to the detriment of those who can.
*<s>Templates and Infoboxes</s> Infoboxes and other templates, are not there to serve each other. <s>Templates and infoboxes</s> They should serve the article, its readers, and its editors.

I am willing to help develop the new infobox so that it keeps to key facts with a minimum potential for introducing error and detail-creep, and to draft guidelines for its use. I suggest that:
*Anyone who would like to have input on designing the new box participate at ].
*The various horizontal footer templates that TT is adding will have some slight overlap for a while (or even permanently) with the current operas-by-composer navboxes at heads of opera articles, but we sort that out separately. They arguably serve two different purposes and the horizontal footers are currently inconsistent and prone to errors and misleading information. Thus, they should not drive the discussion about the current operas-by-composer navboxes, or a future opera infobox. Nor should they have any influence on either their contents or how they should be deployed.
*We wait until we have a reasonable and stable infobox to offer here and make the final decision then as to whether and when it should be used.
*Until then, editors should refrain from adding random versions of these infoboxes to any article (or encouraging others to do so on your behalf) and then loading up this page with yet more distracting discussion about what you've done. Ditto pushing for the development of yet more templated graffiti.

Does this sound like a plan? ] (]) 08:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, no rush, --] (]) 08:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::Gosh, you could have fooled me. ;). ] (]) 09:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Just a note to say that I've been away and have a backlog of non-WP things to do. I've now read all of the above and glanced at the various infobox proposals (it's taken me most of the morning). I can't say that I'm particularly enthusiastic about any of this but we seem to have rather boxed(!) ourselves into a corner. Nevertheless, I'll try and make some helpful comments after another reading some time later today. --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 11:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:Regarding your third bullet point, infoboxes ''are'' templates. Regarding your "timesink" comment, participation in no Misplaced Pages activity or discussion is mandatory. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::I realize that infoboxes are also templates. I was referring to infoboxes and other templates such as navboxes. I've made that clearer now. As for the second part of your comment, what members think would be a time-sink for this project <u>as a collective</u> to undertake or discuss, is a perfectly valid position, and I fully support their right to express that. It doesn't mean that some of us (like me) won't bite the bullet and put in the time anyway. ] (]) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I also support Vocedittenore's suggestions. ] (] - ]) 16:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== Orlandi furiosi ==

Just to vary the topics....I notice from the Vivaldi template mentioned by Gerda that of Vivaldi's two operas on ''Orlando furioso'', one article is entitled '']'', and the other '']''. Shouldn't the former be moved to '']''?--] (]) 09:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
: And then of course ] should become a disambig--] (]) 09:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::I submit that the current names are fully supported by ]. -- ] (]) 09:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I fully agree with Michael on this. As it is, "(RV 819)" isn't an optimal form of disambiguating between the two current Orlandi. It's very opaque to the average reader. ] (]) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Well is there a better way of labelling RV 819 then? - e.g. ] - --] (]) 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::To someone who had no idea there were two versions, this strikes me as a good way of expressing it ]-] 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::There's a precedent: ] and ] (two different operas by the same composer with the same title). --] (]) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, something similar for the current ] would be a good solution. ] (]) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::]? --] (]) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::::: Done.--] (]) 16:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}} Ah, if only all discussions here were that easy. :) Thanks, Smerus. ] (]) 16:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:I changed the two templates but don't know how to pipe so that people know that it is not The Orlando but the early fragment, --] (]) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
::I have sorted this.--] (]) 20:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Thank you, --] (]) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

== Vital articles ==

There is a discussion regarding which music articles should be deemed ] to the Misplaced Pages project. Your input would be appreciated. ] <sup>(]&#124;])</sup> 22:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:Basically, about pruning pop musician bios (and which ones) from the list of ]. shows the classical music or opera bios currently on the list. shows individual classical/opera works on the list. So far no one there has suggested pruning those, or adding any. I'm not sure what difference such a list makes in any case. Needless to say, the overall list is fairly skewed to American/UK pop culture, sports, and entertainment. ] (]) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::The composer list is pretty skewed to Russian/Soviets for some reason. Aram Khachaturian but no Palestrina? Pshaw! Sullivan rather than Purcell and Britten? Sorry! And it looks like all pre-Baroque composers, with the exception of Josquin, are suffering from low "vitality". However, I know better than to get involved in this sort of "horse trading". --] (]) 12:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what kind of criteria they're using. Wouldn't surprise me if had to do with the number of references to a composer's works in "popular culture", e.g. and . Let's face it, Benjamin Britten's stuff doesn't tend to be used in ice-skating routines or ] episodes. So out he goes. ] (]) 12:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Things must be ] for ] then. --] (]) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Surely ] should be on the list? ]-] 13:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::After being led to that remote and mysterious corner of Misplaced Pages, I was inspired to investigate further as to what the criteria are for listing someone as one of the "10,000 Vitals". About the only thing I could see being used on the talk page was how many ] would answer yes to "Do you know know who X is?" In this case it was ]. - ] (]) 15:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::At least ], ], and ] are on there, so the subprojects are covered. But Joe Montana? Vital? Really? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::I wonder if we could get ], ], and... suppose it'll have to be either as they won't take two by one composer - ] or ] added? Offhand, and excluding the composers already represented, I'd consider them the most popular operas, though I'm no doubt forgetting some. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:Maybe ] as well? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 15:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::Direct them to the Operabase list of the most performed operas? ]-] 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I doubt we'd ever get enough of the list to matter, and it appears to substantially underestimate light opera - for example, it severely underestimates light opera, giving Sullivan just 24 performances in the last 3 years, which doesn't even include some major professional productions. Still, it ''is'' a start; I'd be pretty happy if La traviata, La bohème, and Carmen got added to the list alongside The Magic Flute. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 09:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The "Comedians" section is great. Did you know that the only funny people in history have been Americans (with the exception of 50% of Laurel and Hardy, 83.33% of Monty Python and an unspecified amount of Bob Hope)? --] (]) 15:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see that Lorenzo da Ponte doesn't make it into 'Lyricists and librettists' - still, kudos to ].......(shurely shome mishtake?)--] (]) 15:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
ry

== ] ==
I've just knocked up a stub for Tony Hall's successor at Covent Garden - feel free to expand it. --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

== Buttons ==

It just occurred to me that if we had some of on Misplaced Pages we could save a great deal of space and time, certainly in this project.--] (]) 08:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:Actually, it would be interesting to see a discussion page like that. :-) WP does have some of these or similar, see:
:{{facepalm}}

:{{like}}

:On another note of levity, ''']''' has to be one of the weirdest WP categories yet. ], AKA ] (]) 10:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
::could apply to a number or editors......--] (]) 11:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
:::{{like}} - ] (]) 12:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

== Discussion about uniting separated composer templates ==

See discussion at ] regarding uniting composer templates that are separated by type of composition.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

Getting back to the essential - but rather neglected in the present spate of discussions - issue of the quality of articles (rather than the quantity of their trappings), I noted the article ] listed amongst the egregious selection of sogennanten 'vital articles', and was horrified to find a pile of utter tat. I have had a go at rewriting it, but this aspect of opera is not really my strong point, and it still needs much, much more, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Can anyone who knows take a look and do something please? Have no hesitation in scrubbing anaything I have done if you consider it inappropriate. --] (]) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:Bravo, Smerus! What an improvement! That "table" was particularly egregious and there wasn't a reference in sight. I'm currently attending to Dame Smyth, but if anyone else is looking for something to do, perhaps check ] for any mis-categorized ones. A lot of the articles on individual arias are also unreferenced with multiple links to copyvio recordings on YouTube, random personal opinions, uncredited (and sometimes copyvio) translations, etc., etc. ] (]) 16:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

== Re: copyvio using You Tube links ==

I've been meaning to ask: if an opera company has its own You Tube channel (e.g. La fenice) is it ok to put links to videos now on YT?? Or does one have to get permission from the company? The Santa Fe Opera also seems to have its own channel and have asked them for permission re: this summer's premiere of '']'', the article for which I created the other day.
] (]) 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:Official YouTube channels for opera companies and record companies are fine, and you don't need to ask permission. Videos uploaded by private individuals are almost invariably copyright violations and shouldn't be linked to per ]. Best, ] (]) 18:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

== Offenbach template ==

Referred here from WP Classical music, as per comment of ] (]). The template referred to is {{tl|Jacques Offenbach}}. --] (]) 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

''(Begin comments copied from ])''

Why please is a there an overall header 'operettas', then divided in to opera bouffe, opera bouffon, etc., etc.? 'Operetta' as applied to Offenbach in English is a convenience term, not one used by the composer himself. The template (more or less accurately) lists these works by the composer's own terminology, so the overall header for these terms of 'operetta' is both superfluous and misleading. --] (]) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:Convenience term: so is "cantata" for ]s, he termed only very few that way. I think I will stll use "cantata" for being understood, and don't expect the readers of Offenbach to be familiar enough with his terminology in French, - why not conveniently help them? --] (]) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
::Well in fact you don't help them, Gerda, because not all of these Offenbach works are generally claissified as operettas - whereas all of Bach's works that you refer to are generally classified as cantatas, whether JSB actually called them such or not. The template is highly misleading as it suggests that there is consensus in calling all these Offenbach works 'operettas' - such concensus does not exist. Let me gently remind you that Misplaced Pages is here to report facts, not to 'create' them, however saintly the intention.--] (]) 10:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, I don't know enough about Offenbach, was talking more generally, perhaps there should be a broader term for his works. - We know that there seems to be "consensus" to call some of Wagner's stage works operas although he argued against it, --] (]) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Gerda, this is scarcely helpful. Maybe there should, in an ideal world, be a broader term for his works, maybe not. We are here in Misplaced Pages to report, not to speculate. TtT has taken it upon himslef to classify virtually all of Offenbach's output as 'operetta'. If neither he, nor you - nor anyone else - can produce an appropriate citation to support 'operetta' as applied to virtually the whole of Offenbach's works, then the assertion that they are all 'operettas' should be deleted. See ]. It's as simple as that. --] (]) 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
::::I would greatly appreaciate any effort to overhaul the template I created.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'm not sure why all the ] are highlighted either. Differences between these types of genres are often subtle and open to interpretation (unless the composer strictly labeled them himself). That said, I'd leave the issue of Offenbach up to Opera wikiproject as the template is almost completely filled with stage works. At first glance it looks like it almost fully overlaps with their pre-existing infobox ]... but again, I'd leave it up to the other project.] (]) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
::P.S. regarding the overlap, ] is having serious discussions (above) about overhauling the infobox and standardizing navbox content in footer style templates, which is the more standard navbox style on WP.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As the originator of most of the Offenbach material, I think I should explain some of the choices that were made in the past. First of all the composition list was/is called ''']'''. We were following most of the English language sources in using 'operetta' as an umbrella term. (Opérette couldn't be used because the meaning is much more specific in French).

The list gives the actual published genre designation used by the composer. These are explained to some extent in the ] (which I abandoned a couple of years ago after problems documented on the talk page).

Offenbach's genres are meaningful (though ignored by almost all the English language writers), but it's important to understand that they were determined as much by the location of the performance as the form of the work. Finally, in the past we have used the description 'Stage works' when opera or operetta or whatever didn't seem appropriate. I hope this helps. '']]'' 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

''(End comments copied from ])''

*Without getting into the nitty-gritty of this template and its vagaries, I'll point out that while there is ''some'' overlap with the current head of article navbox that we use, i.e. {{tl|Offenbach operas}}, I would suggest leaving it in place in addition to the monster footer for now. For one thing, the "old" navbox presents the operas simply and chronologically, rather than making the reader plow through all the various sub-genres, which actually obscure the chronology of his works. It also automatically adds the composer's image and {{tl|italic title}} to the article. Any removal would entail manually re-adding the composer's image (and/or changing the image layout) and re-adding the italic title template, and there are a heck of a lot of articles on Offenbach's operas. We may eventually decide to go that route provided someone is willing to put in the donkey work making all those changes to each of the 49 articles involved, for very little return. I'm not. ] (]) 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

::This was raised on 13 February on the Offenbach page. In addition to the problems identified above, and that these supposed sub-genres contain very varied works in length and style, the designations are not always consistent between versions of the same piece (eg Pont des soupirs). You would have to be consistent to call Les Contes d’Hoffmann ‘opéra fantastique’. If the intention was to really help the reader interested in exploring a composer'sworks rather than constantly pigeon-hole everything, this horizontal box could contain more useful links: key works (Deux aveugles, Orphée, Belle Hélène, Vie parisienne, Grande-Duchesse, Hoffmann, plus a link to the List of operettas by Offenbach page), then a row with main librettists, Other works, Important theatres associated with him, Important performers, links to different genres, plus other background (Second French Empire or whatever.) But this would need full discussion on each composer page to decide whether and what to have. ] (]) 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been ] with the template. Still not beautiful, but I think more accurate.--] (]) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
:Looks good generally, but I don't think that the rubbishy '']'' belongs there. --<font color="forestgreen">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

== AfD: ] ==

The discussion is at ]. - ] (]) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

== Carmen featured article picture ==

IMVHO there's far too much wall, and not enough Carmen in the picture that goes with the ] article. ] (]) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
:Great to hear you again! - Please say so on the talk of that page, --] (]) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
::It's done. Now I have to find my copy of Victor Borge's Favourite Intervals to see how Bizet described Carmen .. something like "If they want rubbish, I shall give them rubbish"? ] (]) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

== Royal Opera House event - 22 June ==

Following up from my post a couple of months ago, I am delighted to let you know that the Royal Opera House will be hosting an editathon, focusing on the works of Sir ], to be held on Saturday 22 June 2013. (It's turned out more ballet focused than opera, admittedly, but I'm sure you'd want to know regardless...)

The day will provisionally include some form of behind-the-scenes tour, though we're still working on organising the details. If you're interested, please ] and keep the date free - it'd be great to see you there! ] (]) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


== Wagner's Die Feen libretto ==

Just added english line-by-line libretto to Wagner's The Fairies. So far there is no English libretto in Web (except one on my web site). Dear ] and ] could you please add a link to '''German-English line-by-line libretto''' http://www.murashev.com/opera/Die_Feen_libretto_German_English to http://en.wikipedia.org/Die_Feen --] (]) 06:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
* Done, many thanks.--] (]) 07:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
** Thank you a lot, Smerus! But, please, note that DM's opera site's URL isn't murashev.com as you wrote, but murashev.com/opera --] (]) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
***Redone! By the way, I visited Ukhta about 20 years ago. --] (]) 05:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

== Carmen 6 April ==

{{Infobox opera
| name = ''Carmen''
| image = File:Henri-Lucien Doucet - Carmen.jpg
| alt =
| caption = ], the protagonist of the premiere in 1875
| type = ] in 3 acts
| composer = ]
| librettist = {{Plainlist|
* ]
* ]
}}
| language = ]
| premiere_date = {{Start date|1875|03|03|df=y}}
| premiere_location = ], Paris
}}

] will be featured article, - what do think of applying the {{tl|infobox opera}} as a test, for maximum feedback? --] (]) 20:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

: I think ''Carmen'', which is to be TFA on 6 April, is an inappropriate choice for this test. "Maximum feedback" is all very well, but does not necessarily bring sound judgement. There is bound to be a division of view on the issue, and the necessary debate should not be conducted in the hothouse atmosphere of a TFA, when all sorts who have no interest in the Opera Project, or in opera (but have an unaccountable zeal for infoboxes) will want to contribute. In these circumstance the debate will most likely descend into the usual pro- or anti-infobox argument and no positive outcome will eventuate. I would favour a lower-key experiment, on a popular opera that is not in line for TFA; perhaps '']'' or '']''? ] (]) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:: What happened to bringing the finished infobox here for comment? Or are plans just things that get airily sketched to distract the opposition? As for this one on the right, I can't see why the grandiose repetition of some basic facts from the opening sentence or two of the text should trump what is currently there, ie a list of Bizet's operas in chronological order. I had really hoped something interesting and useful might have been dreamt up by now. I would be all up for the article being moved to ], though ]-] 21:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:That would certainly be better than the navbox currently occupying the top-right corner, which would be better as a more 'traditional' horizontal navbox at the foot of the article. The image is perhaps too tall for that location, though. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, wait: There's already a horizontal navbox at the foot of the article, listing the same works. The current !Infobox duplicates this. How ironic. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
::What is at the head of the article is a navbox which also serves to italicize the title, depict the composer, and list the operas. It is not an infobox. And yes, there is currently some duplication in cases where those horizontal mega-navboxes have been developed for some composers, but they vary quite a lot in their quality and consistency. {{unsigned|Voceditenore|08:35, 4 April 2013?}}
:::That would be why I referred to it as a "''navbox''" and "'''''!'''Infobox''". There are other methods to italicise article titles (e.g. {{tl|Italic title}}). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:(ec - how ironic) picture: there's a ], which could be used. Bizet's works and more in the context of Carmen are at the bottom of the article, --] (]) 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with Brian on this. A TFA is '''not''' the appropriate place for an "experiment" to get "maximum feedback". Gerda, you said there was no rush. The idea was we would work up a possible box, discuss it here, I would write up some stuff about it being available for use and how to use it, and then it could be implemented by editors who want to use that option. Instead, you start proposing "experiments", in a TFA no less, and 2 days before it is due to appear. I consider that to be quite disruptive. We can discuss the general idea of the current infobox, and its potential use in a separate section below. If there is a reasonable consensus, we can start using it in less high-profile articles about popular operas, or even Carmen, but several days ''after'' it has been on the main page. ] (]) 07:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:(ec) Of course the size of the image is too big, and Bizet was French (George{{hilite|s}}). Also: the genre description of ] has caused some confusion to the readers in the German Misplaced Pages and the term was removed there; explaining the term, as done here in the lead, avoids such confusion. As for trialling the template on other operas: it seems to me that the state of {{Tl|Infobox opera}} is far from stable and settled. -- ] (]) 07:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
::You're right. The box is far from stable or finished which is why this proposal is both premature and inappropriate. The discussion of what to include in the box and how it is to be labelled is still ongoing and I hope that all who want to input on the mechanics of it (as opposed to the general principal of having one) will make your feelings known at ''']'''. It would be ''very'' welcome. Best, ] (]) 07:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Templates, like articles, are never "finished". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

'''Note''' Why is Andy Mabbett taking part in this conversation? See this community ban (active from August 2012) : "User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day." --] (]) 09:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:Feel free to report my comments here to ]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 09:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
::I don't need to take it to ANI. I'll take it to the closing admin (or another available admin) if you continue to discuss this scheduled TFA. ] (]) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:::I couldn't see any reason to wait. The judgement call as to whether a line has been crossed is an admin's to make. ]-] 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and Carmen is four acts long. The sloppiness combined with the going against the previously agreed plan makes it ever harder for me to assume good will; to fear that no attempt at consensus is being made, just a long battle of attrition until a minority view prevails over less ill-mannered resolve ]-] 09:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
: A suggestion on a talk page is hardly going against consensus; and you are required to adhere to ]. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
::::Noting that increased difficulty in assuming good faith is not the same as saying that one has stopped assuming good faith. I don't know if there's a WP law requiring you to read accurately what people have written. It seems to seem that by misreading me you yourself might possibly be failing to assume good faith etc etc etc ]-] 13:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
::You are required not to discuss Today's Featured Article, scheduled or nominated. --] (]) 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Bullshit. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we not allow Andy's various comments to de-rail this discussion. He will continue to argue over each tangential point until the main point of the discussion is lost. Nor should we do so. The main point of ''this'' discussion is whether a still to be finalized infobox should be added to an article which is scheduled to be TFA in less than two days time, which incidentally would necessitate making other changes to the article and its layout. The view so far from the majority of us here, including that of the editor who brought this article to FA status (and is not a member of the project) is that this would be unhelpful and inappropriate timing. Gerda, I'm asking you as a courtesy, primarily to Brian, but also to the rest of us not to continue to pursue this avenue. There are other articles where the template can be tried out once it is reasonably finalized. ] (]) 10:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:I agree. This is hardly the time for this. Almost everbody is thoroughly tired of this kind of thing by now and the suggestion has not been thought through properly. I think a moratorium on this kind of discussion would be in order. --] (]) 10:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:The digital equivalent of you both putting your fingers in your ears and humming. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 10:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

=== Carmen, later ===

Rubbing my eyes (just recommended praise instead of sanctions to change minds): I made the suggestion thinking that prominence on the Main page could result in more input from more voices for the template-to-be. If the main author and others are against it, I will certainly not pursue it further for that date. - I did not propose an infobox for ] when it was TFA on 23 March, but had one in ], viewed more than 2000 time then, no comment, no complaint. - The Carmen idea came to my mind when I went over the TFAs of the recent past to see if they have an infobox (most of them have one). I will leave the sloppy proposal above for history, sorry for silly mistakes. - Taking in comments, we might look at something like this, for later, of course, no rush ;) --] (]) 11:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:Gerda, can we please not conflate everything into one discussion like this. This discussion was about adding an infobox to the TFA. I'm going to open a separate heading where people can comment on the kind of infobox you are proposing, and you can get more input about your proposals for the box's contents. ] (]) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

==Opera infobox proposed contents==
{{Infobox musical composition
| Name = ''Carmen''
| Cover = CarmenGalliCrop.jpg
| Alt =
| Caption = ], the protagonist of the premiere in 1875
| Composer = ]
| Form = {{Plainlist|
* ], later
* ], in 4 acts
}}
| Libretto = {{Plainlist|
* ]
* ]
}}
| Language = ]
| Performed = {{Plainlist|
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1875|03|03|df=y}}|location=], Paris}} (with spoken dialogue)
* {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1875|10|23|df=y}}|location=]}} (with recitatives by ])
}}
| Premiere date = {{Start date|1875|03|03|df=y}}
| Premiere location = ], Paris
| Premiere conductor = ]
| Premiere performers =
| Misc =
}}
To the right is a type of opera infobox proposed by Gerda, but I am assuming that this would be similar to the type of thing she'd propose in any infobox. Comments please. ] (]) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:To the right is a sample of what an infobox might contain. {{tl|infobox musical composition}} is used, because "opera" is still under construction. The discussion should be at the template talk of {{tl|infobox opera}}, but I wanted at least to correct my silly mistakes here where I made them. Once getting more real, I would add the premiere singers and director, but collapse the complete premiere section, --] (]) 12:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
*My initial reaction. It is confusing, over-detailed, misleading, and in places redundant.
:'''1'''. The performance history is too complex and cannot be sufficiently contextualized via these bullet points. It also ends up with the premiere date appearing twice, the second time devoted to the premiere separately in a huge chunk when the date and place could be listed in a single line. The conductor of the premiere is not important enough for basic key facts about the opera.
:'''2.''' Smerus can input more on this, but I feel it is misleading to call this a ] in any of the versions of its score. This was one of the reasons why I suggested at the genre field should be very simple, i.e. "Opera (or maybe operetta in some cases) in X acts". Breaking it down into sub-genres requires contextualization and can lead to over-simplification and inaccuracy.
:'''3.''' The field should be '''Librettist''' not Libretto. The whole '''Performed''' should go completely per '''1.''' but in any case, the field name is misleading. What does "Performed" mean? It's not transparent at all. This is not a Bach cantata.
:'''4.''' Operas are also theatrical performances, and the infobox should not necessarily be skewed to the musical composition aspect of it. If anything, it could have a '''Setting''' parameter, e.g. 19th century ].
:'''5.''' Do we really want to list the entire premiere cast in the infobox? My view would be no. It's bloat. The article has a proper role table, clearly laid out.


== ] ==
'''TLDR version:''' It should be restricted to very basic key points, easily visible and understandable, not an attempt to rewrite the article in a vertical box. Note to everyone else, the current proposal does not look like this at all. See ]. ] (]) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently clicked on a link at ] for Dellinger's ''Don Cesar'' and ended up being redirected to ] hotel in Florida. Apparently we were missing an article on this work which was apparently significant in its day (I don't know it). Additionally, given how many ''Don Cesar'' stage works of varying kinds have been written, I was surprised the hotel was the target page. I knocked off a quick stub at ] to fix the operetta issue, and then created a disambiguation page at ]. @{{u|Gerda Arendt}} Given that this work was apparently hugely popular in Germany (no idea if it is still performed there) maybe you could assist with expanding this with German language sources? @{{u|Ssilvers}} This was apparently a really popular operetta in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Maybe you could help expand as well? This could probably make a good DYK for the three of us. Be a nice way to start 2025. Any other project members who want to jump in are also welcome. Also, feel free to add anything I missed to the dab page. Best.] (]) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


:I am going to be quite busy for a few months and am not inclined to work on this. After you and Gerda are finished with it, I'll be happy to look it over. I see that has something about it, but the preview cuts off at page 674 and clearly continues with more about it on the following page(s). -- ] (]) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
'''Example for discussion''' On pop music pages the infobox shows a Single or Album within the chronology of the discography for that artist. An example can be seen ] - the releases immediately before and after are presented. Something similar could be possible for operas, if wished ]-] 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Thank you for the source! I am also quite busy, but will look later. --] (]) 07:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:14, 9 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOpera
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42
Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45
Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48
Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51
Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57
Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60
Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63
Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66
Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72
Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75
Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78
Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81
Archive 82Archive 83Archive 84
Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87
Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90
Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93
Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96
Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102
Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105
Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108
Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111
Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114
Archive 115Archive 116Archive 117
Archive 118Archive 119Archive 120
Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123
Archive 124Archive 125Archive 126
Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129
Archive 130Archive 131Archive 132
Archive 133Archive 134Archive 135

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A selection of articles, new or otherwise interesting

Recent featured pictures...

Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals

A simple script will automatically replace the text on the front page with the appropriate month when the time comes. Here are the next three months:

Composer of the Month for February 2025

Click Here to set up February's Composer of the Month!

Opera of the Month for February 2025

Click Here to set up February's Opera of the Month!

Click here to show the March and April Opera and Composer of the Month preparation areas

Composer of the Month for March 2025

Click Here to set up March's Composer of the Month!

Opera of the Month for March 2025

Click Here to set up March's Opera of the Month!

Composer of the Month for April 2025

Click Here to set up April's Composer of the Month!

Opera of the Month for April 2025

Click Here to set up April's Opera of the Month!

Project alerts

Free subscriptions to databases

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

The latest discussion (January 2014) is archived here. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles needing libretto links

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

Help! Does anyone know how to access Karadar these days? It appears to be a dead link - and I've tried to get into it via a couple of ways. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Viva-Verdi. It appears to have disappeared in all its guises–.com, .org. and .it. I have a feeling they ran into copyright problems with some of their stuff. It's not showing up on Google searches at all and see this wacky note. I have found this other site which has links to zillions of libretti. Hopefully, you'll find the one(s) you're looking for. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
List

Le domino noir (only score found), 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

Requested opera templates

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Archived at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 120. Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Place new requests here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Almanacco Amadeus – Che disastro!

Note Do not archive this section. Voceditenore (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It's disappeared again. All links now redirect to this site. I'm keeping an eye out to see if the almanacco re-surfaces, but so far it's nowhere to be found on the new site. Grrrr! Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's finally available again: almanac-gherardo-casaglia.com. --Rodomonte (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to adapt Template:Almanacco to the new URL and its parameters; it seems to work. Lamentably, I discovered only later that Rodomonte had already modified de:Vorlage:Almanacco similarly – that template hadn't been linked to the EN template via interwiki links (now corrected). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much for that, Rodomonte and Michael! Not only for the good news but for fixing the template too. Brilliant! Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Many new illustrations from Ricordi now available

As part of the GLAM project with the Ricordi Archive, the most important historical archive in Italy about music, we have just uploaded hundreds of new quality images: photos and portraits of musicians, sketches, drawings, illustrations of operas. Many Misplaced Pages articles will finally have an illustration! You can find all images in Commons:Category:Media from Archivio Storico Ricordi‎ (here divided by category). Thank you in advance. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank YOU, Marco. What a treasure trove! Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks great and promising! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks for all these great images! Have added some of them to articles already.Smeat75 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Marco Chemello (WMIT): Are there any images the Ricordi Archive would like a restoration done of? I'd be delighted to do a few in thanks. Adam Cuerden Has about 7.5% of all FPs 04:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
In the meantime, File:Giacomo Puccini (1924) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO003293 - Restoration.jpg. Would have liked more resolution on that - featured pictures generally require 1500px on the smallest side, though that one's close enough it might slip through - but I've been wanting us to have a good pic of Puccini for years, and am glad this lets that happen. Adam Cuerden Has about 7.5% of all FPs 07:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear @Adam Cuerden:, thank you for your interest and for your work! Most images requiring restoration are in the portraits, but the resolution is not high. We uploaded higher resolution images in the Costume designs and Set designs categories, see if you find some interesting for you. --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I've loaded up my favourite dozen into my to-do list. Probably going to start with File:Gabrielle Ray (c. 1910) - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO002691.jpg. I don't suppose you could beg them for a high-resolution image related to the Ricordis? File:Giacomo Puccini, Tito II Ricordi, André Charles Messager - Archivio Storico Ricordi FOTO000883.jpg looks like a decent choice. Although I'll also be doing File:Maria Carrara Verdi, Barberina Strepponi, Giuseppe Verdi, Giuditta Ricordi, Teresa Stolz, Umberto Campanari, Giulio Ricordi, Leopoldo Metlicovitz (1900) - Archivio storico Ricordi FOTO003107.jpg Adam Cuerden Has about 7.5% of all FPs 02:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear @Adam Cuerden:, thank you. I'm asking Ricordi for some hi-res images, but it may require some time. Consider also some other group image like File:Gerolamo Rovetta, Marco Praga, Giannino Antona Traversi, Augusto Novelli, Domenico Oliva, Renato Simoni, Sabatino Lopez (1907) - Archivio storico Ricordi FOTO002705.jpg (some of them already used in articles). --Marco Chemello (WMIT) (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I shall be working through as many as I can manage. Just would feel odd to me to get this wonderful release and not do a restoration to celebrate what made the archive, y'know? Adam Cuerden Has about 7.5% of all FPs 09:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

From these treasures, do we have something about operas by Rossini - Pacini - Respighi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Rossini and Pacini are a little early. There was a Belfagorimage, but it was a mislabelled Il Piccolo do Haydn. We can hope the real Belfagor is uploaded in the next batch. Adam Cuerden Has about 7.6% of all FPs 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Belfagor is on the list for next. Adam Cuerden Has about 7.7% of all FPs

Kaoli Isshiki

A discussion is going on for Kaoli Isshiki, a soprano from Japan based in France. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas Eve (opera)

I had the rare chance to see this opera by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, - a great experience! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Don Cesar (Dellinger)

I recently clicked on a link at List of operettas for Dellinger's Don Cesar and ended up being redirected to The Don CeSar hotel in Florida. Apparently we were missing an article on this work which was apparently significant in its day (I don't know it). Additionally, given how many Don Cesar stage works of varying kinds have been written, I was surprised the hotel was the target page. I knocked off a quick stub at Don Cesar (Dellinger) to fix the operetta issue, and then created a disambiguation page at Don Cesar. @Gerda Arendt Given that this work was apparently hugely popular in Germany (no idea if it is still performed there) maybe you could assist with expanding this with German language sources? @Ssilvers This was apparently a really popular operetta in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Maybe you could help expand as well? This could probably make a good DYK for the three of us. Be a nice way to start 2025. Any other project members who want to jump in are also welcome. Also, feel free to add anything I missed to the dab page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I am going to be quite busy for a few months and am not inclined to work on this. After you and Gerda are finished with it, I'll be happy to look it over. I see that this source has something about it, but the preview cuts off at page 674 and clearly continues with more about it on the following page(s). -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the source! I am also quite busy, but will look later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: