Talk:List of fictional literature featuring opera

message: This will be a Wikipedia version of a document created by subscribers of the e-mail list OPERA-L of fictional works that have something to do with opera.  kosboot 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it is alphabetical by author but listed by title. Can we reverse the title/author? That way books by the same author can be listed on one line. -- Kleinzach 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The raw list I'm working from is alphabetical by author.  Perhaps you can point to a page that has a nice formatted version of such a list?  I've also not included any of the thumbnail summaries which would add value to the list.  Any formatting suggestions? kosboot 05:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest doing it in a sandbox, also joining the discussion at Opera in Fiction. There are different options we might look at to make the list more interesting and protect it from the deletionists. Having it in different sections - chronological or thematic - might work but it's worth talking to people about it. I don't know of any list like this one, so I don't think we'll find a model that is simple to adapt. -- Kleinzach 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this:  since the raw data I'm working with is alphabetical by author, why not let me continue - and when the entire list is complete, I'll be able to sort it (in a word processor) to be alphabetical by title.  Sound good?  kosboot 12:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Alphabetical by title would be neater, but not more informative, or more readable, but I don't want to push my own ideas, hence my suggestion to talk about it to the other people. Also if this is 'raw data' it should be in a sandbox. Here it's published and anybody can put it up for deletion or whatever. -- Kleinzach 13:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Ok, so I surmise there are varied ways some people would like the list organized:
*chronological, perhaps with a 50-year breakdown (and smaller increments for recent times; and
*By theme (er...what theme?)
*By depth of operatic involvement, i.e. whether the plot is based on an opera, or whether opera plays a small but significant part, or other involvement.
I think filling out bibliographic information for each book can be easy enough - finding the right format is the dfificult part.  Should be as a table (I like tables) or should it just be an entry as an unnumbered list?  Responses welcome! -- kosboot (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, frankly, the organization is the least of the problems. If you want to save this from articles for deletion, the important thing to tackle now is the addition of proper bibliographic information and an explication for each item as to the relationship of the work to opera. It also needs a properly drafted lead. I don't think it should be in numbered table form. These are not used for lists like this, especially ones with commentary, and are difficult to edit. My own view is that this should be worked on as a draft on a user sub-page. Piles of raw unreferenced data like this should not be in the article space. Voceditenore (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. This needs referencing and - perhaps even more importantly - thorough annotating. How X piece of fictional literature relates to opera, how significant is opera to the fiction, and even "what does the fiction reveal about opera"? Without annotation this list is without meaning. With annotation, I'm sure it'll be great. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to improve the list 

message: Also, "mentioning opera" is not great: that leaves open the possibility for a really vast list. "Significantly featuring" would be better. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, moved to "featuring". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps simply 'featuring'? I think that gets the idea across. I agree 'mentioning' is too weak. --Kleinzach 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Featuring" is certainly a stronger word and is less encouraging of listcrift than "mentioning" would be.--Peter cohen (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with all of these is that the involvement of opera with any of these works varies:  some are adaptations of operas, some have just a fleeting mention of opera.  The only word I could think of that would encompass all these variations was "mentioning."  If anyone has a better idea that could encompass the entire list, let me know! -- kosboot (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the reason for including works with  "just a fleeting mention of opera" ? This sounds a bit like the trivia that is sometimes attached to opera title articles. Should they be removed? --Kleinzach 01:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one of the ideas behind the list was that it could provide reading material for people who are obsessed with opera. -- kosboot (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is what some of the comments about WP:Listcruft were about. That link and WP:Wikipedia is not supply information on what should not be a wikipedia list. "List of fiction relating to opera" might cover an acceptable list. This would allow for re-tellings of operas, satires, SF stories in which people find completions of Turandot etc.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title