Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 27

message: This is a notification that :Category:Operas by Kurt Weill is being considered for renaming to :Musical dramas by Kurt Weill at here. Please weigh in if you would like. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In connection with this Cfd Die Dreigroschenoper has been removed from the other opera categories including :Category:Ballad operas. How do other people feel about this? Cielomobile has explained his point of view on the talk page. -- Kleinzach 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfR: Operas by Kurt Weill to Musical dramas by Kurt Weill 

message: The opera synopsis of this article is garbled, and could use some attention from someone familiar with the story. --Pharillon 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The referencing is also virtually non-existent. I'm surprised that bot thingy hasn't tagged it yet. Best, Voceditenore 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turn of the Screw 

message: Our current symbol is the Sydney Opera House. This appears on the project banner. (Userboxes have the same image, or the fat lady graphic, or the Leipzig operahouse picture.) One problem with the Sydney Opera House is that the shape of the image doesn't fit the banner well - it needs to be squarer - see Template:WikiProject Opera. The fat lady graphic (above) on the other hand is too fine and doesn't reduce well to a small size, see Template:Opera1. (now deleted, see other topic)
I've been looking though WikiCommons for alternatives and found the image on the right. It's a logo for the Opera station of the Madrid subway. It was designed by Javitomad see  who has (apparently) designed at least one logo for a WP project (and is a user here under the same name). 
I am wondering whether we might ask Javitomad to design either a version of the above, or a new one, for our logo. Is this a good idea? What do other people think? (Incidentally this would not hold up the bot run as the re-design could be done after that). -- Kleinzach 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's willing. But the sign isn't as iconic as Sydney. --Peter cohen 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any ideas for an iconic image are welcome. It doesn't have to be based on this image here. -- Kleinzach 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project logo?

message: If you all believe that your assessments might run roughly equivalent to those of other projects, you might want to run User:PockBot to see what if any existing assessments have been done, and maybe save some time that way. I wish I knew exactly where the project's banner was, but alternately, if you believe that your project might have different criteria than other projects, you might want to copy the banners at Template:WPMILHIST and Template:WPGR and substitute in any parameters that you think might be unusual or unique to your project. If you wanted any help doing either of these, I would be more than willing to lend what help I could. Just let me know. John Carter 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be useful to see the other assessments anyway. There's scepticism about the assessment process of a certain project in particular. So we may want to vet other people's assessments instead of accepting them automatically. --Peter cohen 15:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. If you wish to run the PockBot, go to the User:PockBot page and enter the name of the category whose assessments you want to see displayed. And, remember, if you do disagree with anyone else's assessments, there is always the option to request that they do a reassessment. I would, however, note that other projects may well have at least slightly different bases for their assessments, and possibly different criteria, so there may be quite a bit of variation between the assessments you make and they make, based on those different criteria. And, depending which project you are referring to, there is often, particularly with Biography and some of the other really large projects, like Military history, potentially a lot of people doing assessments, and some of them might be much less than really good at it. I know I have recently had to upgrade a few of my own assessments of Saints articles based on my now having more defined internal "parameters" for the various grades, and think that the same thing happens to probably every project and person involved in assessments. So I can understand not necessarily accepting anyone else's assessments on face value. Actually, I would even encourage that, as the assessment may well have been done before several subsequent revisions to the article. But they can often serve as at least of what others have earlier seen as being an article's strengths or weaknesses. Not wanting to scare anyone here, but there are hopes that articles be assessed regularly, to reflect changes which may have been made since the last assessment. So, at least potentially, the project might want to ask someone to maybe once or twice a year go through a given subcat to see if the content of the article has changed recently. That is a bit down the line, but something I thought you might want to know in advance anyway. John Carter 15:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you agree with the auto assessments, then just remove the "|auto=yes" from the banner tag. Regarding whether you want to remove the banners in general, that tends to be a rather more sticky issue. Lots of people have argued on both sides whether banners should be removed. The primary subject of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject reform is substantively that subject. In general, I guess I would say, that generally, most operas will be eligible for the opera banner and probably at least the banner of the country of origin of the opera. Whether these articles actually have been so tagged is another matter. Most of the articles relating to biographies have probably also been tagged with the bio banner, I imagine. It is generally considered bad form, as per the WikiProject reform page above, to try to remove banners of projects which are clearly and specifically relevant at least potentially to an article. However, if a banner has clearly been placed there in error (if, for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs tagged The Magic Flute), then the banner can generally be removed without difficulty, although you might consider dropping a note to the project about removing the banner, as it might actually be relevant for less than immediately obvious reasons. The alternate approach, which actually has been at least more or less provisionally agreed to, is to place the banners of all projects which are at best peripherally related to an article within the template. Regarding specifically the Biography project, it is clearly harder to argue from generalities, like the above, to specifics. In general, I can say that I don't think Biography would object their banner being placed in the shell, with the provision of keeping the  visible in cases of articles clearly relating to living people, and, maybe, keeping the banner individually visible if it has the "core" biography tab activated, like on Johann Sebastian Bach and Giuseppe Verdi. There is a specific (if currently more or less dormant) work group specifically designed to work on those 200 or so articles, and with luck it will reactive shortly, hopefully to improve the articles. In those specific cases, it might be a good idea to keep it visible separately. Sorry for being so verbose, but I think this way would probably be the best way to avoid any possible conflicts with either Biography or any of the other projects which might tag such articles. John Carter 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on multiple project banners and assessments 

message: I want to add this external link in my sandbox to the Spinto page, but I first want to doublecheck if it's properly attributed, or if I need any kind of special permission to add this paragraph to Wikipedia. Operalala 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible qualm is that what you are doing appears to be original synthesis? Please correct me if not. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, It's actually a illustration of spinto and lyric voices, which happened to be juxtaposed in this soundclip so that listeners can hear the differences between them, rather than advancing any kind of position. Am I understanding this right? Operalala 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, I'm being a little silly. I'd cut the bit in brackets, though, just looks a little strange. Moreschi  Talk 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean take the highlighting part out? I guess I was trying to be as true to the source as possible, but I think you're right, it doesn't really belong on this site. Operalala 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution/Permission question 

message: Here are some ideas for the September composer(s) of the month:
*Bedřich Smetana (1824-1884) and Antonín Dvořák (1841-1904) 
*Hungarian operetta: Jenő Huszka (1875-1960), Emmerich Kálmán (1882-1953), Victor Jacobi (1883-1921)
*Gaspare Spontini (1774-1851) and Luigi Cherubini (1760-1842), 
*Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)
*Paul Hindemith (1895-1963)
Any other suggestions as always welcome! -- Kleinzach 02:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Czechs would suit me. I have several of their operas in my to-do list on my user page. If I know they're going to happen, I can focus on other articles before then. --Peter cohen 10:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rossini still needs some concentrated attention;  Kurt Weill, too.  I'd also be happy with the Czechs, but could we add Janacek - the operas are all there, but some (e.g. From the House of the Dead) need expanding. --GuillaumeTell 11:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Silbersee is on my list too, so I wouldn't mind Weill. Three major Czech operatic composers might be abit of a handful. --Peter cohen 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The three Czechs would only need 7 completely new articles, compared with over 20 for the three 18th century Italians above, so I think they would be practicable. They would also make a good contrast with the other composers we have been doing recently. (I had a feeling no one would go for the Hungarians!) -- Kleinzach 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd second that. Czechs in September, then Cavalli. --Folantin 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No reason, but it should be "The Beginning of a Romance" (see Grove, s.v. Janacek). --GuillaumeTell 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Glad I asked! I've made the change now. -- Kleinzach 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: September Composer of the Month