Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 2

message: Figaro has edited quite a few articles on operetta, replacing sentences such as the following:  
:Trial by Jury is a comic Gilbert and Sullivan operetta in one act (the only single-act Savoy Opera).
with this:
:Trial by Jury is a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera (operetta) in one act (the only single-act Savoy Opera).
I think it's misleading to call these works "comic operas" first, and then put "operetta" in parenthesis.  As the departed DrG has maintained, some people view operetta as an entirely seperate genre, though it's often also seen as a type of comic opera.  But simply putting "operetta" in parenthesis after "comic opera" indicates that they are synoyms, which really isn't true.  
There are quite a few examples of this, all marked as minor and without edit summaries.                 
Any other opinions? --BaronLarf 14:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
:As you correctly point out, comic opera and operetta are absolutely not synonymous.  Operetta, as most commonly used, refers to the genre which was most prominent in the late 19th and early 20th century (and arguably was replaced, at least in the U.S., afterwards by musical comedy).  Comic opera is a broader genre which goes back another couple of centuries.  Let's not imply anywhere that they are the same thing.  Thanks for calling attention to this. Antandrus  (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree — as a G&S fan, I always thought the main difference between operetta and (any kind of) opera was that operetta involved a large amount of non-sung dialogue. So the only G&S work that could possibly be called a "comic opera" would be Trial by Jury, and I wouldn't call it an "opera" either. :) --Quuxplusone 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic opera vs. operetta 

message: Is having both causing confusion? There is also :Category:Opera by language and  :Category:Operas by language.  Is the singular devoted more to the art form and techiques, while the plural is devoted to actual examples? Should they be combined? Any comments or insights are appreciated. --DrG 02:57, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
:I think that :Category:Opera and :Category:Operas should be kept; it makes sense to have a category devoted to the opera art form and a subcategory devoted to specific operas themselves.  But I think that :Category:Opera by language and all of its categories should be deleted. Only the :Category:Swedish opera subcategory actually has any member articles.  --BaronLarf 03:59, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
::I am in favor of removing :Category:Opera by language also.  As it stands now, :Category:Operas has no articles, just sub-cats. I would like to propose elimating :Category:Operas and promoting is sub-cats to :Category:Opera. --DrG 20:47, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
:::This sounds like a good idea to me as well.--BaronLarf 22:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
:::I disagree;  :Category:Opera should be for opera in genre, including opera houses, opera directors, operatic singers, opera companies, etc.  :Category:Operas should be a subcategory for specific operas.  It should not be an issue that :Category:Operas only contains subcategories:  see :Category:Plays.  Merging "Opera" and "Operas" would be like merging "Theatre" and "Plays".  Note also that there is no :Category:Plays by title, but rather the list article List of plays.  --BaronLarf 02:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
::::These category discussions are driving me nuts!  I hope everyone can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.  We are all wasting tons of time categorizing and recategorizing because we don't have a commonly held view of how categories should be set up.  I think the :Category:Plays example above represents what is WRONG with the current system.  Plays can only be found in "by nationality" subcategories that really have little to do with drama.  If I want to browse through a list of plays, I don't care about nationality.  But that is not to say that someone else might want to.  Personally, I think we should be able to have both.  The root of the problem with categories is that some people see them as a way to index or classify articles, and this has led to the rule about not having duplication in sub and super-categories.  Others think that categories are primarily a way to navigate through Wikipedia and articles should be in whatever category should be usefull.  I've been trying to forge a compromise on this topic.  I hope you will take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Opera]] versus [[:Category:Operas]]

message: I see there are categories for British, German, Hungarian and Italian opera but not for French, American, Czech, Russian etc. opera. - Kleinzach 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Operas by nationality

message: ===The New Grove Dictionary of Opera as basic reference===
The leading reference work on opera in the English language is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera edited by Stanley Sadie and others. I propose that we should, in general, follow their rules. They clearly spent many years looking for solutions to basic opera usage problems (capitalization of titles, eastern European and Russian names etc. etc.) and rather than attempt to reduplicate their efforts, I suggest that we follow their decisions. (No doubt there are errors in Grove so occasionally we will present information differently.)
I have added an entry on the New Grove Dictionary of Opera as I found it didn't exist.
Kleinzach 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No ghost town :-) --  I believe I fixed it (edit the cat so the entry starts with a capital "B"; the actual category entry is the article title, not what you put in the cat line).  Antandrus  (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Various discussions (2005)

message: The leading reference work on opera in the English language is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera edited by Stanley Sadie and others. I propose that we should, in general, follow their rules. They clearly spent many years looking for solutions to basic opera usage problems (capitalization of titles, eastern European and Russian names etc. etc.) and rather than attempt to reduplicate their efforts, I suggest that we follow their decisions. (No doubt there are errors in Grove so occasionally we will present information differently.)
I have added an entry on the New Grove Dictionary of Opera as I found it didn't exist.
Kleinzach 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Grove Dictionary of Opera as basic reference

message: I have corrected the title of Un ballo in maschera (from Un Ballo in Maschera), however this is mis-sorted in 'Category:Italian-language opera' to an obscure lower-case b section. Curiously enough this has not happened to Un giorno di regno which appears under cap G. Does anyone know how to deal with this? Or is this a ghost town? - Kleinzach 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No ghost town :-) --  I believe I fixed it (edit the cat so the entry starts with a capital "B"; the actual category entry is the article title, not what you put in the cat line).  Antandrus  (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting

message: Since I have taken on the task of updating the Opera house section, here is a list of recently-completed houses (in addition to other entries  - as one follows links in need of work....). 
Dorothy Chandler Pavilion - USA
Garsington Manor - UK
Gothenburg Opera - Sweden
Drottningholm Palace Theatre - Swedden - some major corrections led me follow a link to The Magic Flute, the Ingmar Bergman film NOT photographed there.  The film entry has been greatly exapnded after I ran thge DVD the other day.
In turn, this led me to create an entry for the film historian, Peter Cowie
National Theatre (Munich), home of the Bavarian State Opera
The first of these focuses more on the theatre itself; the second deals more with the complany and the opera performed.  The latter could be expanded, but my focus has been on more detail on the house itself.
In the Opera Companies section, I have added
Dallas Opera - USA . Did not exist
HOWEVER, THERE ALSO EXISTS A SECTION CALLED OPERA HOUSES which attempts to list in several categories, and then some houses alphabetically (including The Copenhagen Opera House being listed under the letter "T").
I would hope that there is agreement on somehow combining these and removing uncessary duplication. (There are far more links on the "House" pages to "Opera House" than there are to "Opera Houses"....
Vivaverdi 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera House versus Opera Houses

message: I have made a category for opera terminology (similar to the music terminology category). There already are a lot of articles explaining opera terms and it seemed sensible to put then 'under one roof'. There are now about 20 articles in this category. 
Kleinzach 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera terminology category

message: I have just finished a long article on The Record of Singing, the important compilation of operatic singing (and song) formerly published by EMI. This shows, amongst other things, which singers from the first half of the 20th century are missing from Wikipedia. 
Kleinzach 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing singers (1899-1955)

message: In case anyone feels strongly, I have proposed a page move from :Belcanto to :Bel canto. Feel free to vote at Talk:Belcanto. Makemi 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Someone has suggested that Opera buffa be merged with Comic opera. Would anyone like to express any opinion? Mine is on the Opera buffa talk page. Best. - Kleinzach 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Opera buffa]] merger question

message: At the moment we have a large number of entries in the genre category. Are some of these redundant? For example we have:
:Category:Children's operas, :Category:Fairy opera, :Category:Lyric fairy tale
and
:Category:Romance opera, :Category:Romantic opera
(Is it possible to delete categories, or are they immortal?)
I also see that :Category:Operetta is not a sub-category of opera, but an independent category under Theatre and Music. Does this matter?
Musical Terminology is a flourishing category under music, but we have no equivalent category for opera, with the result that there are very few 'technical' articles. Some items come under genres when it might be preferable for them to be terms.
Any thoughts?
Kleinzach 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant Categories etc.