Talk:Tosca

message: I'd like to suggest moving this material from the Synopsis to the Background. It provides information that's not contained in the libretto, so isn't strictly speaking a synopsis. Moving it would make the synopsis a bit clearer and also bring it in line with the format of other opera articles. Any other thoughts on this? Thanks, OperaBalletRose (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See this discussion about that issue. In terms of helping the reader, it's probably best placed where it is. Having it as separate subsection before Act 1 doesn't imply that it's in the libretto.  Alternatively it could be in separate section. The Background section is about the background to the writing of the opera itself and its context in the history of opera and/or the composer's works. It's not meant to for background of the subject matter. Also, this is a Featured Article that went through peer review, FA review, and a lot if discussion along the way. While FAs aren't carved in stone, there needs to be very good reason to alter their structure. Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Voceditenore re the Historical context.  The matter needs to be right before the synopsis, but we can discuss the structure and what to call it.  Extensive modifications to a FA, where the lead editors and others who contributed are still active, should be talked about, not imposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit leery about the 2K plus of plot exposition added by OperaBalletRose and will probably cut it back a bit, but I'm busy with other stuff.  Especially Act I.  The casual reader does not need to know about the food basket, for example.  I see the plot synopsis as written not for the Puccini maven, but for the guy who has opera tickets, has never seen it, and is hastily reading the plot on the way to the theatre (hopefully not while driving).  Minor details are a distraction.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - thanks for directing me towards the earlier discussion on this. Can quite see why the Background section isn't the place for Historical Context. Perhaps we could set it up as a separate section, then, as you suggest, preceding the synopsis? My only worry is that by including historical context in the synopsis we're mixing up fact and fiction. We're also referring to other narratives (Sardou's play), and historical figures (Libero Angelucci), which could potentially be a bit confusing. But I do appreciate this article is a Featured Article, and has gone through many revisions, so this is only a suggestion! thanks. OperaBalletRose (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the feeling was that the historical context section is necessary for figuring out the synopsis.  I don't want to add it to the background section because that means moving it to the top side of the "roles" table.  I'm OK with renaming it, but feel it should not be moved.  Your contributions are valuable, and I'm glad people take an interest, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could have its own section just above the synopsis? Otherwise we could call it 'Factual historical context' to distinguish it from the fictional narrative of the opera? As for my additions to the synopsis, I hope on the whole that they're constructive, but am fairly new to editing synopses on Wikipedia, so still learning about suitable levels of detail/tone etc. Any helpful feedback most welcome! I appreciate that the food basket is perhaps a detail too far, though thought it would be useful to include mention of Spoletta and Sciarrone, as they're both listed in the Roles section. OperaBalletRose (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, people are going to click in the Table of Contents on synopsis, and they'll never see the context.  So I'd really like it inside the synopsis section.  As for your edits, there's nothing awful about them, they should probably just be trimmed a bit.  It's just style.  Don't worry over it, just remember we are writing for the general public.  I'll go through it and cut it back a bit or possibly someone else will.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the synopsis is now getting too long. A synopsis should be a summary of the main themes and events of the plot, not a retelling of every detail of the drama. I'd be for editing it back to something more direct and essential. Also, the historical information provides a context for the events of the story which are tied to a very specific moment in history. Agree that it is probably most useful to the reader just before the synopsis. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the current treatment and placement of the opera's historical context. I also agree with most of the synopsis expansion, although some of it needs stylistic polish (4 consecutive sentences in act 1 starting with "The", 3 of those with "The [...] Sacristan" – which shouldn't be capitalised). I can't see how a detailed synopsis can be described as a distraction. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tosca#Historical_context|Historical context]] 

message: The recordings section is meant to be a brief account of the opera's recording history, not a comprehensive list of every commercial recording or the place to slip in your personal favourite. Please also note that the addition of a recording which has not been "commended" in the source cited, cannot use that source as a reference. This is a featured article. There have been many discussions about the amount of detail to include in the article, its structure, etc. by many editors as the article went through peer review and the FA process. If your edits have been reverted, please bring the issue for discussion here on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings section 

message: In section 5.2 (subsequent productions), it's stated that "In Philipp Himmelmann's production on the Lake Stage at the Bregenz Festival in 2007 the act 1 set, designed by Johannes Leiacker, was dominated by a huge Orwellian "Big Brother" eye. The iris opens and closes to reveal surreal scenes beyond the action. This production updates the story to a modern Mafia scenario, with special effects "worthy of a Bond film".[54]"
Is that last statement a joke, or just really ironic?  Because it was used in a Bond film, namely Quantum of Solace, and not in just a passing way: a sequence of decent length is comprised of huge shots of this production.  In fact it's so different from the rest of the film that it ends up being among the most memorable sequences in the entire movie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.216.109 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be worth a footnote to set off the quote. We had no idea. I will look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 164.107.216.109: that statement is not ironic but, if your description is correct, prescient. The production and the quoted article in the FT occurred more than a year before the release of Quantum of Solace. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bond Film 

message: I don't think  by User:Markhh was an improvement. It changed
:"While critics have frequently dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot—musicologist Joseph Kerman famously called it a 'shabby little shocker'" to
:"While critics have dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with confusions of plot—musicologist Joseph Kerman referred to it as a 'shabby little shocker'".
By omitting "frequently", the sentence gives now the impression that  critics "dismissed the opera ..." – surely not.
Then, omitting "famously" will open the door to further debates why this quote should be mentioned at all. The point is of course, as established at length above, that it is so famous. I suggest to revert to the previous wording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that " critics"  suggests "all critics". To me it means some or an unspecified number. "Frequently" sounds like a nonstop onslaught of negative crticism, which is certainly no longer true. The fame of Kerman's quip has been debated here at length and I have supported it in the past. But I have come to see it as giving him the de facto ultimate judgement on the opera, mostly because of his clever use of alliteration.  I look forward to hearing other editors. Best, Markhh (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, one has to chose the hills one is willing to die on and this isn't mine. (I'm not sure how one comment constitutes a concensus on my edit, however, but there it is.) I do hope in time another way to summarize diffences of opinion on the quality of the work in the lead section may be found that can dispense with the snarky Kerman quip altogether. I don't dispute that the quote is "famous", but does that familiarity mean it is really insightful or helpful? I vote no. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the original prose, and I don't see anything wrong with the quote's current inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break 2