Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 1

message: José Carreras has been marked for cleanup. --BaronLarf 22:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
I just got an obsessive-looking (to an outsider, or just me) list of operas I've never heard of from someone who knows I'm sort of into sailing off on these sorts of musical explorations.  Would anyone want the list for ideas for writing something about lesser-known operas?  I don't actually know that the works on the list are particularly unknown to folks who've spent some time getting into it, but... it's free information in list form! --chaizzilla 02:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pages marked for cleanup

message: For documentary purposes, I have copied here the following text from Talk:Royal Opera, London -- Viajero 14:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not one. They are legally separate, just as the Royal Ballet and the building are separate. The theatre is much older than the company. The Royal Opera House should not be categorised in opera companies because it is not an opera company. Oliver Chettle 11:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am aware that, technically speaking, they are not one. However, in cases where the opera company has not been associated with two (or more) theaters for which we have entries, it makes sense to deal with them both on the same page. In nearly every singer biography, there is a line which goes something like this: "in 19xx singer X made his/her debut in [London]", where [London] is a variable. Hitherto, we have had to choose between linking to the "Royal Opera House" (the locale) or to "London" (the public); either is correct. Now you complicate things further by adding a third option: the company. Did singer X perform at the hall or with the company? In virtually all cases, the answer is: both. If you look at any other article on a major opera house, such as La Scala or Berlin State Opera you will see that the house(s) and the company are intertwined. It is not ideal but serves our purposes better than splitting things in separate pages. Please reconsider, especially given the fact that all of the information on this page can safely be brought under ROH, as my original merge demonstrated. -- Viajero 12:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Legally separate" is not a very useful distinction for the Wikipedia reader who might be kept in mind more constantly than she is. Is it really sensible to have two articles on each major opera venue, one for the house and one for the paper corporation that may or may not own the physical plant? Perhaps Oliver Chettle will take pity on the reader and the rest of us. --Wetman 13:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually everything I do on Wikipedia is done for the readers not for the comparatively tiny number of editors. I am unconvinced by the arguments put forward. The opera company article is just as legitimate as the ballet company article (I hope I haven't now exposed that to attack). The building has a long history which does not really relate to the present performing company, and much that should be written about the company has little to do with the building. Oliver Chettle 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  from Talk:Royal Opera, London 

message: I've found that Porgy and Bess is listed for peer review.  If we want to get an opera to attain featured article status, this is probably our best bet; it has a good deal of information already, has a number of interested editors already involved, and it's an English-language opera, which means it should be more readily accessible for English-language editors. Cheers. --BaronLarf 15:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Good idea. With a little work, it can be submitted to a Featured Article vote. -- Viajero | Talk 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to get permission for pictures from the Gyndeborne Production, and continue improving the plot section. --Alexs letterbox 09:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting an opera article to Featured Article status 

message: I'm planning on starting a whole bunch of new opera articles (and expanding some of the stubs and shorter articles already in existence) when I get home from vacation in a week or two. Most of my plan is simply to work my way through the OperaGlass archive alphabetically, going to Grove and to the collections at the UTexas Fine Arts Library for the content. 
I have already familiarized myself with the categorization schemes for opera. Hopefully, I won't be stepping on anyone's toes. Microtonal 29 June 2005 04:14 (UTC)
:Sorry for not answering you right away;  I somehow missed your comment.  Of course you can play!  No one has any ownership of any articles or group of articles, and your contributions will be greatly appreciated.  If we ever have any disputes over categorization or that sort of thing, this is the place to sort it out.  Please feel free to add yourself to the list of participants as well.  Cheers --BaronLarf July 7, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
::Welcome Microtonal. Sounds good. There is lots to do here. -- Viajero | Talk 11:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I play, too? 

message: What do you think of making an opera "to do" list. That way people would know what things need to be done. Such as opera's that need pages, composers that need catagories... and so on. Further, if we have a to do list, should it go on the project opera page itself, or on this page? Captbaritone 23:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do list? 

message: After the success of the collaboration on Porgy and Bess I feel we should choose an article each week/month/period for collaboritive effort, particularly those concerned with individual operas. Most of these pages are just a short paragraph with a synopsis, but if we could take the effort that has gone into Porgy and Bess, we could have a respectable number of featured articles. 
--Alexs letterbox 07:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, why not Carmen then? --Viajero | Talk 10:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I've done a little on Talk:Carmen outlining what I think the page desparately needs. --Alexs letterbox 23:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I alos like the idea, and will put in anything I can. Captbaritone 00:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations? 

message: As some of you may have noticed, I have been working on the Carmen page. I have added about five recordings to the Recordings section, but I know that there are more famous ones than those presented. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find them using the Internet, and really need people with better General Knowledge than me. If you know of any more notable recordings (or consider the ones that I have put on the page as not so) then please add it using the format I have given. Thanks. --Alexs letterbox 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carmen