Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 36

message: Greetings tutti,
Is notable arias really useful as a standard part of the article template?   I notice even Gianni Schicchi has a separate section, but it seems to me that mentioning musical high points within the synopsis (with links to arias that have articles) is more in keeping with what I understand to be wikipedia's preference for a prose style.   Apologies in advance if this is a dead horse; I dont see an index to the discussion archives. Sparafucil 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't discussed this as far as I can remember. Personally I prefer to see the arias given within the synopsis - in italics? - though there are a limited number of articles with good, complete synopses. What do other people think? Should we change the article template? (Incidentally we have been trying to dissuade people from starting articles on arias on WP. Texts should really be on WikiSource). -- Kleinzach 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not in favour of having a separate section for "noted/notable arias", especially as some of them aren't arias but duets, choruses, whatever.  I'm currently filling out the synopsis of Don Carlos, as time permits, and am incorporating the first lines of the arias as I go.  I think that the template should be changed. --GuillaumeTell 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it actually much better to put the arias in the synopsis but it is not an easy task mainly because not many contributors have details on it. Most people know the synopsis and the arias for operas but to put it altogether might be a bit difficult.  Anyway, if anybody could move the arias to the correct part in the synopsis, it is of course make the article looks much better. About Wikisource, I have no comment; hopefully someday we could have some understanding on how they want the format to be in there. - Jay 03:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Great, I wont be shy about editing in the future.   I note that the few aria articles have been done within the scope of the songs project.   How does WikiSource work?   Obviously a text and translation dont constitute an encyclopedic article, but where would one look for errata, customary transpositions, cuts, text alterations, substitutions and other traditions? Sparafucil 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiSource is supposed to have original texts, just as WikiCommons has images etc.. Unfortunately as Jay experienced, they are not familiar with our kind of material. When Jay presented them with some arias they demanded the whole opera, and they were talking about separating the original text from the translation. Someone needs to sort everything out there but it would take some time to do. Meanwhile, welcome and do sign on the project!  -- Kleinzach 09:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just need a confirmation. After we include the arias/duets/choruses into the synopsis, can the current “noted arias” section be deleted? I have deleted Tosca’s noted arias section and probably will be looking at Carmen and others. I also noticed that GuillaumeTell  has removed the section from Don Carlos too. - Jay 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To Jay: Yes, what we need to do is gradually merge the arias sections into the synopses.  GuillaumeTell removed the Don Carlos arias section because he had included it in the synopsis. -- Kleinzach 09:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several synopses from Opera Japonica scattered around.  Kleinzach sorted out the copyright position some time ago with the WP authorities.  I guess that minor amendments such as adding aria details are permissible, but if there's a wholesale rewrite, such as I'm doing on Don Carlos (mostly based on Julian Budden), then the reference to OJ needs to be removed. --GuillaumeTell 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: notable arias

message: I do not like edit warring so I took the liberty by publishing the Don Carlo, The Met (3 act - unabridged version) synopsis/DVD/intro from the DVD that I have. Refer Synopsis and details in Fotopages
Verdi never did or revised to 3 acts but The Met did. The storyline is actually the same with Verdi's version but the act was done in three while the scenes were extended. But since it was produced this way, The Met 1983 Don Carlo is known as "Opera in 3 act (Unabridged Version)".
The recording history section in the article MUST reflect the “history” of how the actual play took place. We can’t “label” the Met 1983 Don Carlo as 4 or 5 act because it has never be done that way but yes, we can put that in "remarks" column. People who read the intro of Don Carlo/Carlos should be able to know that the "changes" was done by the opera house but not the composer. That is also the reason why I and The Met had to put “Unabridged version” – the term is self explanatory.
Hopefully this would end the "nonsense" remark from those who are not sure. I do not wish to see anymore editing with remarks “nonsense” to me, save it to The MET! Anyway, I am open for discussion; it’s just that I believe our fact about how it was presented by any opera houses must remain and we can't change as we wish. Thanks.
PS- I posted this in Talk:Don_Carlos but also put in here in case some of you don’t go there - Jay 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Met 3 act (extended scenes unabridged version)

message: Please look at the discussion at Talk:Porgy and Bess.  An editor wishes to add an infobox to the article.  My understanding is that the Opera Project does not want infoboxes on opera articles.  -- Ssilvers 13:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Porgy and Bess Infobox

message: Is it acceptable to link a search page on a commercial website to confirm that an aria is notable enough to have had many recordings, or would this be considered commercial spam? At the moment this is the only way I can think of to add a citation note to confirm it. Lethesl 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all welcome to the Opera Project. We hope you will enjoy contributing to articles here. Regarding your query, do you have an example? We don't normally have to prove the notability of arias, only the operas they are in. Regarding commercial websites, we do sometimes link to them but they are normally not a main reference or source. Best. -- Kleinzach 17:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's to back up the statement about the first aria mentioned in the Hans Heiling music section. I took those arias from a site cited at the end of the list, but regarding it calling the first aria "the gem" of the opera, I was thinking I could link a list like this, to provide examples of many recordings to back it up as not being someone randomly making the claim without verification: http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=7705&name_role1=1&bcorder=1&comp_id=9853 Lethesl 17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've done a great job! It's a model article. Given the authoritative approach in the article as a whole, I don't see any problem. If the article is underpinned with good sources then adding one commercial website link is fine IMO. As always I think we should use common sense rather than slavishly follow the capitalised gibberish, After all, we are not writing a legal textbook! -- Kleinzach 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about verifiability 

message: Just to let folks know that I have started putting up articles on the operas of Fromental Halévy and have created . Still a long way to go, so if anyone wants to chip in.......Smerus 21:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's terrific! Perhaps this is a good opportiunity for me to make a plug for including new operas in The opera corpus, and :Category:Operas as well as including Opera Project banners on the Talk page and using default sort tags! That everything will be perfectly perfect. Best. -- Kleinzach 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Halévy

message: I have a query here on categorisation, arising from Kleinzach's comment immediately above. My understanding of WP practice is, if an item is categorised at a lower level, it should not also be listed at a higher level. E.g. an opera in :Category:Grand operas should not also be listed in :Category:Operas. See WP:Category#How_to_categorize_an_article which commends 'frugality, placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in.' I would propose that we adopt this procedure, thus avoiding 'double vertical categorisation' (although of course many articles may fall into more than one category 'horizontally').
As regards banners, The opera corpus, etc. I entirely agree with Kleinzach. --Smerus 09:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Opera Project has an establish guideline on putting all operas in :Category:Operas see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas. This is based on the to the 'Secondary categorization rule' of WP:SUBCAT. The intention is to make it possible to access a full list of operas which have WP articles. This issue was discussed in great detail here very recently (see 'Operas category' in Archive 26, 5 to 8 june 2007) and a strong consensus reconfirmed using the category in this way. It would be appreciated if everyone could respect that decision and use the category so new articles don't slip under the radar. -- Kleinzach 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do, thanks for explaining this. --Smerus 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On categories

message: I've just created this article. The opera sort of 'morphed' into Elisabetta. Some would argue that in the process they became almost separate operas. Nevertheless, I've put them both here and discussed the process in the performance history. Do with it what you will. ;-). Best, Voceditenore 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I've added it to the navigation box. Are you going to add redirects from Élisabeth ou la fille de l'exilé , Gli esiliati in Siberia and Elisabetta? -- Kleinzach 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have now added the redirects. Best, Voceditenore 05:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added standard frame for roles - Jay 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Otto mesi in due ore]]

message: May I know whether it is necessary to have? Some of them are really “funny” (pathetic actually) and sorry to say “useless”. I seriously do not see why we should have trivia that doesn’t seem to benefit the article. What do you guys think about this? Usually (most of them) were added by non opera fans like adding “sport” section, video games etc. I don’t think this is something an encyclopedia’s articles should have, this is just my opinion. Some of are just plain stupid!- Jay 12:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which articles are involved? Usually the best thing to do is to make a Trivia section heading and then put a  tag underneath it. -- Kleinzach 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed from Tosca and Viva-Verdi removed it from Nessun Dorma (under title "Appearances in popular culture"). I also have removed some lines  from Pavarotti's and Domingo's trivia - something about Pavarotti doesn’t read music notes and Domingo's granddaughter taken nude photo and makes him sad bla bla and many more from other articles (I can’t remember) . Well, some of them are true (I know) but I just don’t feel it should be included in there. Sometimes it feels like reading a tabloid. - Jay 12:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for chopping such trivia. As they say, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Folantin 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case we have a clear policy on this here -- Kleinzach 14:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. Useful stuff can be mentioned in the article proper; junk should be culled. Trivia sections are pretty awful things. Moreschi  Talk 13:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of it now on Pagliacci. -- Kleinzach 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia