Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 47

message: I have recommended this for deletion, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 15. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A CALL TO ARMS!!! Everyone please check this out and give your support for this deletion. It is a horrible cattegory page with many ignorant fans supporting it so it is difficult to get rid of. It already failed to pass deletion once. I listed my reasons on the discussion page for deletion. Please add your support.Nrswanson (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your support, but hang on - we aren't allowed to canvass. This is just a notice - we aren't telling people how to vote! -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a vocal pedagogist and I just spent several days improving the article. What exactly do you find unclear?Nrswanson (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Whistle register singers]]

message: I've prodded Piceleo’s Davanto as non-notable or a hoax, but I know that many sources for lesser known older works are not on line (and I know next to nothing about opera). If someone would like to do a spot of research to prove or disprove the existance of this, feel free. Thanks! --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's a hoax. Clue: it's "not been staged since the 16th century" - as far as I know, there is only one opera from the 1500s, Jacopo Peri's Dafne (and that hasn't survived). --Folantin (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help!--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piceleo’s Davanto 

message: Following the discussion above (Opera navigation boxes/Ordering of works) I propose we add the following ('GuillaumeTell rules') to Section 10 (articles), with a link to Section 14 (navigation boxes), of the project page:
Chronological lists of operas (in articles and navigation boxes) are arranged by the date of first performance if the opera was first performed during the composer's lifetime, or shortly after his/her death. If the first performance was greatly after the composer's death, the date of composition is used. Non-chronological lists should be in alphabetical order.
Please agree/disagree or propose any necessary changes. Thanks and regards. -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all prefer chronological in articles. The only major exception is The opera corpus which has a special function as a 'road map' and in any case would require a huge (and rather pointless) effort to make chronological. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I of course dissent.  Do we want to invite conflicts with the rest of the classical music world by extending this rule beyond navigation boxes to articles?  GuillaumeTell, I think I follow your concern about complicated revision-composition histories, but what would be gained by re-assigning Šárka from 1887 to 1925? Sparafucil (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you on this. Some operas are obvious early works. I think that common sense actually plays a role in implementation. Die Feen was first performed soon after Wagner's death but is sensibly early in the list.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I originated the Janáček and the Wagner templates and seem to have applied common sense in both cases!  So maybe the GuillaumeTell rules need a small amendment.  Hard cases make bad law, of course, and there are lots of cases where date of composition would be problematic, too. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to formulate the amendment yourself, or will this do?   In general, chronology of operas is (like other works) by date of creation when this differs from premiere or publication.   When the composition/revision history is especially complicated or controversial, the composer worklists in Grove should be consulted. As I've said before,  there doesnt need to be a one-size-fits-all approach to this: premiere dates are more appropriate in the context of reception history, and who's to say that Donizetti might not be better navigated alphabetically? Sparafucil (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with Sparafucil's proposed wording which IMO will confuse editors. -- Kleinzach (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists of operas

message: Porgy and Bess has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Porgy and Bess]] Featured article review

message: Just wanted to check about operas with "Noted arias" sections. This upsets my desire for precision, but, at the same time, many operas do not divide up easily, so this may be better than just giving a scene list, or giving the numbering used in the score, which may file the famous arias under the material leading into them. But it still seems a second-rate compromise at best, and so I think it best if it not be used where avoidable. Adam Cuerden talk 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an established (and recently discussed, see 'Synopses: discussion needed?' above) practice of trying to integrate 'noted arias' etc. into synopses. (I don't think anyone likes to see separate lists.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, the one I was looking at - I Lombardi alla prima crociata - did both. Adam Cuerden talk 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, you will be able to find examples of almost any permutation of synopsis/arias. Much editing needs to be done. The root problem is the quality of the synopses (as discussed above). -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, me too. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The “noted aria” section should be deleted once they have been incorporated into synopsis – that was what we discussed before. I have deleted noted aria section in I Lombardi alla prima crociata. - Jay (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the numbering is a practice I picked up from my time in operetta. It's rather more useful there, as you can imagine, but some operas are broken up with dialogue, e.g. Der Freischutz, and for those, I'd recommend it. But it'd be fairly useless for something like Tosca, which grows organically. Adam Cuerden talk 22:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query: lists of 'noted arias'  

message: Her Majesty's Theatre is a current GA nominee, please feel free to improve the article. It has been adopted by this project and presented opera for many years, including many premières of Handel's operas. I would appreciate your input. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her Majesty's Theatre is currently a featured article candidate please help improve the article, or leave comments at its nomination page. Kbthompson (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her Majesty's Theatre 

message: I need project members to look at Joan Sutherland page – it is about her unpleasant feeling when she was interviewed by a Chinese or Indian officer for her Australian passport (pretty much controversial before). The page has been heavily edited and don’t forget to read comments in the  talk page. I need members in here to stop edit warring that has been going on for many days - Jay (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joan Sutherland]] controversial issue 

message: I have nominated the falsetto page for deletion for the following reasons: This article contains material that is covered in other wikipedia articles, most notably the falsetto register page. Furthermore, this article fails to incoporate itself within the larger topic of vocal registration and is highly biased towards a vocal pedagological perspective that fails to incorporate the perspective of speech pathologists. I considered merging the two articles initially but the understanding of the term register between the two articles is so different I doubt this is possible. The falsetto article uses some controvercial perspectives on head voice and chest voice which are not widely embraced by the vocal pedagogical community. Read the vocal registration article for clarification.Nrswanson (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of falsetto page