Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 33

message: In all the infobox brouhaha, I forgot that this was Mozart month on the Opera Project. Anyhow I just expanded this article from a stub. It was originally only a couple of lines plus a list of the existing pieces from the opera.  I left the list as it was, and just put it in its own section, but I suspect the list needs to be formatted differently and I'm not sure quite how it should be done. So maybe someone could nip in and do that?  Also, if you think the stub shouldn't have been removed, please feel free to slap it back on. Best, Voceditenore 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO definitely not a stub. Looks excellent, given that the work is such an anomaly anyway. -- Kleinzach 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! And thanks for the tip about the capitalization for the title. I was quite unsure what the convention was for the "ossia" type titles. I'll go fix it. Best, Voceditenore 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I added the frame for roles. Do you have its premiere date? (It is too long to be called a "stub" article) - Jay 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay, I'm wondering if these sorts of frames are useful for unfinshed operas that have never been premiered as an opera per se. But in case the OP wants these for all operas, even unfinished anomalies like this, I've now added this note above the table to clarify: Note that the opera was unfinished and never premiered as such. The singers names given in the table below are those for whom Mozart wrote the roles and who were to have sung in its premiere. This was the way I had originally presented the roles and projected cast. Best, Voceditenore 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure about the format for unfinished operas. Let see what others think about it. I put up the frame to standarzied the article format. - Jay 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. This opera is unique. I don't think we will have another one where the cast is known but the performance never happened. -- Kleinzach 06:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, don't worry about it, Jay. I've removed the field for premiere date and composer (whoops) conductor and with the addition of the preceding explanatory note, it should be fine. Also, since I hate seeing red links in my articles, I've also done an entry for Bampton Classical Opera. Best, Voceditenore 09:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lo sposo deluso]]

message: There are currently 32 talk page archives, mostly about 30k long.  This makes searching through the archives extraordinarily time-consuming.  Does anyone object to consolidating them to 5 200k pages?  There are very few "What links here" hits to the archive pages, so this wouldn't break links.  Fireplace 20:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I can't see any objection myself, but could you adjust the links I made today on the project page accordingly (first four links in "Infoboxes", referring to current archives 15, 30, 31 and 32, I think). Thanks. --Folantin 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always archived them at 30k because I understood that was the WP recommended limit per page. Has this changed? Frankly I don't see that 200k archives would be much easier to use. Maybe what we need is an index? Is that possible? -- Kleinzach 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 30k limit is primarily to prevent articles from becoming unreadably long.  Larger archives would be easier because if you're looking for the discussion of xyz, you can find it by using your browser's find function on just a few pages. Fireplace 00:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. But what about having a index of headings? -- Kleinzach 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't the archive pages automatically have tables of contents? --Folantin 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but a separate index would be much easier to use and the archives would not have to be reorganized. Incudentally I have checked and the 30k archive does seem to be the norm. --  Kleinzach 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archives 

message: Hello all. I just recently went to the Kathleen Battle page and was horrified by the state it was in. Most of the information on the page was not cited, and the information was badly organized, rife with gramatical errors, and poorly written. So, I have begun the process of revamping the article. Out of respect for whoever created the article I have tried to leave things as close to the original as possible. (although I was sorely tempted to just delete the thing and start over) Anyways, I have spent a while working on it and I now have a headache. lol There are still too many things to fix and I am worried about possibly plagiarized material from the previous authors. If any of you have a heart to help please do! I love not having to do it on my own. Oh, and I know there are still several obvious errors. But just look at how many corrections I've made already. I'm going to bed now but I will be back to work on the page tommorow. I welcome all others to join the effort! :-) Nrswanson 05:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been a created a while back, thanks greatly for your efforts. I'll take a look. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The image apparently was extracted from a record cover, from  (see the explanation in the image file) so perhaps it should be deleted? -- Kleinzach 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kathleen Battle

message: Help, please: An editor just deleted the entire musical analysis section from the article on the grounds that it was generally uncited.  I restored the material and added a couple of "cite needed" tags.  If anyone has a book on George Gershwin or P&B, would you kindly add the cites?  I don't think the whole section should be deleted, although I'm sure it could be improved.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Voceditenore.  It would have been a shame to loose that information from this Featured Article.  -- Ssilvers 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.;-) Those two refs were pretty easy to find, although I'm a little concerned about the examples from the score in the sub-section on 'Use of leitmotif'.  It really ought to say which edition of the score was used, publisher, etc. I notice that the info hasn't been given in the image file information either. They were uploaded by User:Alexs letterbox. Perhaps he could be contacted? In any case, since it was Featured Article, surely objections about the referencing would have been raised then. So it's probably OK. Best, Voceditenore 16:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Fair use problems...here we go again. Will sort out if at all possible. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 17:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's another issue with the sub-section on 'Use of leitmotif'. Without a reference to a published work supporting the particular analysis given there, it could potentially be seen as a violation of "No Original Research". After googling, I doubt if it's plagiarism, at least from an online source. But it could be from a book or journal article, in which case it still needs referencing. Best, Voceditenore 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Great, that's excellent. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Porgy and Bess]]

message: Hello everyone. I recently was making a list of opera companies in an article and I noticed how confusing the tag to the Royal Opera (a.k.a Covent Garden) is. The Opera Company is tagged as Royal Opera, London and the tag for The Royal Opera House actually has the tag for Royal Opera. When listing opera companies a singer has performed with it looks really odd to have the ',London' in the mix of opera companies. I was wondering if we could maybe change the tag for the opera company to simply Royal Opera, as that is its actual name, and then change the link to the opera house to the Royal Opera House (which is its name).Nrswanson 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always use piping to simplify a link. For example Royal Opera, London can be piped to Royal Opera. See the code, it's the same link. -- Kleinzach 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, it should be called "Royal Opera" and "Royal Ballet" as the sub articles for ROH. - Jay 18:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opss but there are other "Royal Opera House" in Valletta and Mumbai. I think thts why the author put "London" behind it. - Jay 18:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This came up before. I wasn't involved (as far as I remember!) but I think the present arrangement is there to avoid ambiguity. -- Kleinzach 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But to avoid ambiguity might not "Covent Garden" be better appended to "Royal Opera House" than "London" to "Royal  Opera"?--Peter cohen 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment we have Royal Opera, London for the company and Royal Opera House for the house. Each three words which seems to satisfy the requirement to use the simplest practical title. Are you suggesting that the latter should be 'Royal Opera House, Covent Garden'? I'm not sure I understand the advantge of this. In any case we can use re-directs for all possible permutations-- Kleinzach 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Royal Opera also takes you to the Royal Opera house. I'm sugesting that we make Royal Opera go to the company instead. When you are listing opera companies on a persons bio ',London' looks confusing. Royal Opera is more clear.Nrswanson 04:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I understand what you mean - the re-direct. Yes, OK, the normal way to deal with this is to make a disambiguation page. -- Kleinzach 07:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you! That's perfect! Do you think we should make a disambiguation page for Covent Garden as well?Nrswanson 22:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many articles are there? If it's only two then maybe it's not necessary, but if there are more it might be a good idea. -- Kleinzach 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the tag at the top is preferable to a disambiguation page. --Peter cohen 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Opera link

message: I discovered that there are two articles on Solveig Kringelborn: Solveig Kringelborn (just a stub) and Solveig Kringlebotn (more complete).
The name she uses on the Norwegian version of her web site is her real name "Solveig Kringlebotn". On her English version, and in sources about her in English (including my ROH programme for The Flying Dutchman) she is referred to as "Solveig Kringelborn" (easier to pronounce, I guess) 
I propose to use Solveig Kringlebotn as the article (adding an "also known as"), and then redirect Solveig Kringelborn to it. Is that OK? Or should I transfer the material from Solveig Kringlebotn to Solveig Kringelborn and re-direct from Kringlebotn? Voceditenore 08:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that because this is the English-language WP, it would be better to use the best-known form of her name in English-speaking countries.  I see, though, that Kringlebotn is now the preferred form.  Obviously, it doesn't make a lot of difference so long as there's a redirect, but I for one had no idea that her real name wasn't Kringelborn, and I imagine that others who've heard or heard of her might be equally surprised.  But whichever form is used, the article should at least mention that the other form exists (and say why). --GuillaumeTell 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article should explain the spelling difference - then there's no problem. -- Kleinzach 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I nipped 'round this morning and saw that Moreschi had kindly done the re-direct. I took a closer look at the article, and it was actually a bit of a dog's dinner, with lots of misspellings, infelicitous phrasings (I think it had been translated from the Norwegian Wikipedia), wrong info (e.g. her Met debut was in Don Giovanni not Meistersinger), etc. Plus the only two sources, besides her official web site were in Norwegian. So I fixed it up a bit, added some refs, and explained the two versions of her name. Best, Voceditenore 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles, same singer

message: I just ran into this article and added some information to it from the internet, but this impresario had a major impact on opera in both England and America in the 19th century, so I wonder if someone here wants to adopt the article and take it further.  There appears to be quite a bit of information available about him.  Best regards,  -- Ssilvers 15:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Plunkett - one of our best contributors on opera articles - is working on this. Maybe you'd like to talk to him? -- Kleinzach 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[James Henry Mapleson]]

message: Are all the fan sites, for Mario Lanza Yahoo chat sites, etc. Wikipedia standards on this page?
:I've removed the worst of them. Mak (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mario Lanza