Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 41

message: Smerus has put in a strong request for Charles Gounod (1818-1893) and there's also been interest in Gioachino Rossini (1792-1868).
Here are some other candidates:
*Albert Lortzing (1801-1851)
*Tomaso Albinoni (1671-1750)
*Marc-Antoine Charpentier (1643-1704)
*Gaspare Spontini (1774-1851) and Luigi Cherubini (1760-1842)
*Early German composers and the development of Singspiele: Johann Adam Hiller (1728-1804), Anton Schweitzer (1735 - 1787), Johann André (1741-1799), Christian Gottlob Neefe (1748-1798), Johann Friedrich Reichardt (1752-1814), Peter Winter (1754-1825) 
Past CotMs: Auber, Bellini, Donizetti, Dvořák, Gluck, Grétry, Handel, Hans Werner Henze, Janáček, Lully, Leoncavallo, Mascagni, Meyerbeer, Mozart, Offenbach, Rameau, Sacchini, Salieri, Sarti, Smetana, Verdi, Weber - also 'American' and 'Women composers'. with the following coming up: Cavalli, Haydn, Krenek and Weill. This adds up to 9 Italians, 9 Austrian-Germans, 5 Belgian-French and 3 Czechs so far.
Comments? Ideas? Votes? Ideally one each rather than multiple selections! -- Kleinzach 01:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do Gounod. --Folantin 08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Let's decide on Gounod then. I've entered him above. I think I have the main works but feel free to add other titles if you want to write articles on them.-- Kleinzach 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. The main article on Gounod is pretty feeble as well, needs a workover. (e.g. nothing on his mistress Mrs. Weldon, 'the only person on record as having attempted to blackmail Queen Victoria').--Smerus 13:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gounod is fine with me. I would like to suggest Antonio Caldara for February. Cecilia Bartoli recently recorded several arias by the composer which sparked my interest in his work. Right now wikipedia doesn't mention any of his operas, just his oratorios. Nrswanson 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Composer of the Month for January

message: I am sorry, I am a bit upset right now. I need some advice or comment from all of you. I have received 2 photos from Mr. Domingo office so far (the PR says she will send  2 or 3 more later in 2-3 days). I uploaded the photos in WikiCommons with remarks “for promotional purpose”. Actually I didn’t know what to write, I followed some sample I see in some of the photos uploaded in here. 
When I wrote an e-mail to Mr. Domingo’s PR, I introduced myself as one of the authors in Wikipedia (also mentioned “we” as in us, in Project opera) and asking for written permission and their approved photos to be published in Wiki “Groups” aka all the “Wiki”. The PR given me the permission based on that request.
After uploading the photos in Wikicommons, the admin responded fast by suggesting it to be deleted with reason, it is for promotional without asking me why I wrote it that way – as I said I didn’t know what to write actually! May I knw what actually the policy in wikicommons? The permission given is for all the WIKI family! It was so damn hard for me to convince Mr. Domingo’s PR to giveaway his photos with permission and now all the efforts just  gone down the drain. I don’t want to ask Wikicommons admin the detail because it just piss me off. I moved the photos in Wiki now. May I know what actually I have done wrong in Wiki Commons or how to correct it? I would prefer for the photos to be in Wiki commons than in here. - Jay 08:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the PR people give you the photos unconditionally, or were there conditions attached? Who owns the copyright to the photos? The PR agency or the photographers? -- Kleinzach 08:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unconditionally (based on my request to be published in WIKI and its family) but as for the first photo, there is a statement saying that it should be credited to the photographer. She didn’t state any "terms and condition". The photos are from the PR Executive but it is sanctioned by the company she is working with, which is the company that hold all Domingo events and businesses. I sent the first mail via the e-mail "box" in Domingo official website, she replied after about 1 month (the 3rd mail I sent actually). She couldn’t give photos that I wanted due to some copyrights issue but then agrees to give me some, using Placido Domingo photos collection own by the company (Placido Domingo company) - Photos that the company has every rights to be given away for various purpose including promotional. That is why it took her quite a while to send me the photos, she has to go through lot of procedure too, I guess. - Jay 09:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds OK. Can you tell WikiCommons they are free images? The photographer credit should just be a (reasonable) courtesy? -- Kleinzach 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually at first I made a mistake. I wrote "for promotional" because I just copied from the remarks from some photos. The admin in Commons should have asked first before putting a sign for speedy deletion. I have reply to them as what I wrote here but if they still want the photos to be deleted, I think I will just let it be. I have changed the link in Domingo's article not to point to commons and will only change it back to Commons when the admin there have change their mind - Jay 10:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can tell them you made a mistake, that the images are 'free' and not promotional (which implies conditional)? -- Kleinzach 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have explained to them and they asked me to follow the guidelines in  Commons:OTRS for the proper procedure to upload photos that we claimed to have written consent. I decided to wait until the PR has given me all the photos that her company can release to us. After that only I will upload all of the photos and use the guidelines from Commons:OTRS for all of them. It is much easier that way. So the Commons Admin could verify all the photos with Domingo office at one shot instead of doing it one by one. In the meantime, the photos stay here in Wikipedia. If any of the Wiki admin like to have the copy of the e-mail sent by me and the reply from Mr. Domingo office, feel free to drop me an e-mail  - Jay 08:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Domingo photos

message: Since the author has repeatedly removed the non-notability tags and then the PROD tag (placed by another editor), I have put Sarah Kraus on AfD. Please contest this if you can demonstrate notability. Perhaps I'm missing something. Voceditenore 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sarah Kraus]] AfD

message: Is it time to delete the 'WikiProject Opera Work in Progress' box on the main project page? The adoption system isn't working and the box hasn't been updated since April. Unlike Composer of the Month (and the Can you help?/Can you translate? sections) this feature has never been much of a success. Shall we get rid of it? -- Kleinzach 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that although the box hasn't been updated, the 'Major article' listed, Opera in English has been worked on through August by 4 editors since it was posted. Best, Voceditenore 12:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text says  "Listing as an Opera Project Work in Progress follows adoption by at least five members of the project."  and  "Listing as a Prospective Good Article or Featured Article follows adoption by at least two members."  but there's only one signature. It seems to be moribund. Can the space be put to better use? Perhaps Singer of the Month? -- Kleinzach 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Perhaps one of the problems is that new-comers may not realize where and how they can formally sign on as an adopter. Others might be happy to help when they can but don't want the responsibility of 'adoptive parenthood'. But even so, since no one seems to be using this, it might be an idea to remove it for now and just cover the material in the Can you help? section. Best, Voceditenore 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I've removed the 'Work in Progress' box and replaced it with a new 'Can you help?' one. Hope that's OK. Ideally, I think it would be better if the boxes were alongside each other rather than above and below, but I don't know how to do this. -- Kleinzach 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove the 'Work in Progress' box?

message: For those of you who were following the discussion about Harolyn Blackwell's voice type ages ago, you will remember that I e-mailed Harolyn Blackwell to ask her what she considers her voice type to be. Well I recieved a reply from her representative Peter Greer, who answers her e-mails, and he told me that she considers herself to be a lyric coloratura. My question is whether or not this e-mail constitutes as a valid source. I have made no changes to the article yet. Nrswanson 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question About Sources

message: Kleinzach suggested that I post a request here - I've done so also in the Bio Project page, but no takers yet.  Over at Kathleen Battle there's been a discussion over the better part of 2007 regarding the brief section of her bio discussing her firing from the Met in 1994. The section has gone back and forth in editing, and the discussion can be seen here [], although as Kleinzach points out it is difficult to follow since some participants failed to sign their comments.  Essentially, there are those (including myself) who think the discussion of the event is best limited to the fact of her termination and the press statements at the time issued by Ms. Battle and the man who fired her, Joseph Volpe.  Others believe that in order to achieve NPOV it is necessary to include the reported views of James Levine, or (even more attenuated in my view) the opinion of such individuals such as the present Met general manager Peter Gelb, who was not affiliated with the Met in 1994.  Still others have repeatedly added unsupported characterizations of Ms. Battle as "gracious", etc., to this section.  It would be nice to stop the edit "battles" (pun intended) and achieve a stable bio entry.  Is there anyone with an inclination to give some time to the resolution of this issue?  Thanks very much. NickInBigD  (Hey!) 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just had look at the talk page. Wow! That article will be a candidate for 'Singer of the Month' over my dead body.;-) I've made a couple of suggestions there, for what it's worth. Best, Voceditenore 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voceditenore , I like your idea of segregating the years in career starting from early years  till present like what you did for José Carreras. I have changed the format in Plácido Domingo article and also adding some new stuff in it ;and currently doing some work to add for the details for 1960s - 1980s; 1990s – present. Will add gradually when I have the time. Feel free to check the grammar and others. - Jay 14:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance on [[Kathleen Battle]]?

message: Sorry to bring this up again.  But after the discussion here this article still contains both the original text and an uncredited translation.  The libretto is still in copyright (© Riccordi 1926 renewed 1954.) I personally think it should be removed and replaced by selected quotes of the key lines. Comments? Voceditenore 06:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the translation I'm concerned about. It's the original Italian text. The libretto is still in copyright.  Best, Voceditenore 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, if you are sure that some of the arias are still in copyright, you can ask for speedy deletion. I will support that, including few that I start myself. I am not aware of the copyrights because they can be found easily on the internet. - Jay 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I decided not to propose it for deletion, but instead restructured the article to contain what I think can be justified as 'fair use' excerpts and expanded the article. It's not something I would do for many aria articles, most of which I don't think deserve an article on their own, especially if all they contain is the text and translation and information about the opera in which it appears.  However, 'Nessun dorma' is different.  It's one of the few arias that truly has a 'cultural resonance' and recognition outside the world of opera. Its significance, independent of both Puccini and Turandot, is considerable. Like most OP members, I don't like the lists of silly and truly trivial trivia that some opera articles attract. But when they do appear, it's a signal that the opera (or one of its arias) has had an impact beyond the opera house, and may have acquired interesting and significant meanings and associations in the wider culture. In my view, some of those items can and should be incorporated into the article, e.g. Cavalleria Rusticana. Others, if edited out, should be preserved on the talk page, as in Talk:Pagliacci. Best, Voceditenore 12:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nessun dorma]] Copyright Issues

message: I've had a message from Tony Kaye, the person using the User:Rplowright id, saying that some of the information is wrong. I'm encouraging him to take up the conversation in the article talk page.--Peter cohen 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rosalind Plowright]] 

message: Can someone poke at that dratted image I found and see if they can get it to play nice with the formatting of everything else? Adam Cuerden talk 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a go at this - using 'clear' tags. I suppose another solution would be to put the Donizetti navigation box at the foot of the page. -- Kleinzach 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Still a little awkward: Lots of whitespace. Mind you, that plot summary is pretty awful, and the image came with a lengthy critical commentary, so I'll try and have a go at expanding it, if I get the chance. Adam Cuerden talk 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, the problem will probably disappear once the synopsis is fleshed out. In the mean time, you could try making the image a bit smaller, and moving it to the left and top of the synopsis as here: User_talk:Voceditenore/Sandbox It's not particularly crucial that it be placed directly by the Act III synopsis. It's near enough to it and clearly labelled. But then I'm a sucker for the aesthetic side of articles. ;-) Best, Voceditenore 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Don Pasquale]] 

message: Hi. One member, Kleinzach, told me that he liked my logo for Opera station (of Madrid Metro)... and I think you'd like to use it for your project... I give it to you for any use.(Sorry about my English)Javitomad  (...tell me...) 23:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's terrific, but what about other people here? Should we ask Javitomad to do a special version for us? Perhaps with new colours? (I was actually writing to Javitomad about something else, but since he's contacted the project perhaps we can look at this?) -- Kleinzach 00:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like it - although not the colours particularly - but might there not be some copyright issue here?Smerus 09:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like it too, although I think I'd like more subtle colours. I don't see how it could have copyright issues since it's from Wikipedia Commons. Best, Voceditenore 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Javitomad created the logo and put it in WikiCommons. Re colours, it's worth remembering that it will be very small when reduced to banner/userbox size. Any suggestions for Javito? -- Kleinzach 16:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it. The greens are quite subtle compared to the dayglo green in the one pictured above. Perhaps a similar colour scheme for the Opera logo using the two greens in the Wagner one? Voceditenore 06:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I'll talk to Javito and see what we can come up with. -- Kleinzach 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About my logo 

message: GuillaumeTell, Peter cohen and I have just finished rating the 44 articles on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner. This was based on the Wagner Project Assessment page (and lengthy discussions which are here and in the two following archives).
Using a category-based points system (devised by GuillaumeTell) together with an edited version of the standard Quality Scale (now both on the Assessment page), it was possible to rate articles with good consistency and reasonable speed.
Conclusions:
* The points system is simple and straightforward to use, and easy to adapt to different categories of articles (operas, singers etc.). 
* Rating is easier and more accurate when an entire category of articles (composers, operas, singers or whatever) are batched together on the basis of an agreed points system for that particular group. (Randomly rating articles - an opera, then an opera company and then a singer etc. - leads to inconsistencies.)
* The basic WP Quality Scale and the points system are complementary not contradictory.
* Assessors must be non (or minimal) contributors in order to be objective and impartial. 
* Assessments should be done by editors with an interest in the subject, though not necessarily experts.  
* Assessments should be recorded and explained (with suggestions) on the 'Talk:Xyz/Comments' pages.
* Assessments should be distinguished from peer reviews which are done less frequently and more thoroughly.
Should the rating system be extended to the Opera Project? Comments are invited! -- Kleinzach 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! It looks like a very well thought out system and pretty easy to use. What a huge amount of work this must have been for you all. Well done! The only things I might query are the need for a complete list of roles and complete discography for singer articles.  For some singers the lists can be enormous, and possibly overpower the rest of the article? Best, Voceditenore 14:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Even with only 44 articles a fair amount of work was involved, so launching assessments for 4,000+ pages here would not be something to be attempted lightly. We do have a few discographies at the moment - for operas - which are put on separate pages. Obviously a discography for Patti would be a different proposition from one for Callas. -- Kleinzach 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no more comments, I've transferred the Points System tested on the Wagner project to the assessment page here - for future reference. -- Kleinzach 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article assessment trial on the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner|Wagner Project]]