Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 18

message: I know this has been discussed before, but the main reason for previous opposition to the use of infoboxes seems to be aesthetically-based. If a new infobox template which was a little easier on the eyes was created, would people want to use it? I would personally be in favor of its use; infoboxes make it much easier to find basic info like composer, librettist, genre, premier, etc.. They seem to be a convention of popular music articles more than art music articles (WP:MUSICAL uses them, but not WP:CM), but I think that's one area where we could take a hint from our popular music compatriots. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the main reason they were deleted is they were encouraging users to add factually inaccurate information to this encyclopaedia (see the long debate at Project Composers for numerous examples). They were also redundant. --Folantin 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various issues with infoboxes. If we think about print encyclopedias and how they work, it's clear that boxes can be effective to highlight special information but only when they are used sparingly. I don't know of any enclyclopedia where every article (or every biography) has a box. (Of course there are other problems . . .) --Kleinzach 09:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. It should read "...they should not be added or removed without first obtaining consensus...". Andy Mabbett 22:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it read that way? That's clearly not the consensus on the talk page. I agree that if there are editors who have worked on a composer article in the past who wish to retain an infobox, a discussion should be had on the talk page. If, however, there is a single person engaging in edit warring simply to prove a point, that person should probably be ignored. Mak (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't raise red herrings. Andy Mabbett 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify (as Kleinzach request on my talk page), I guess I'm proposing "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of infoboxes is often counterproductive on opera-related articles.  They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." I just see this as a change in form, not substance.  Fireplace 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Most of the definitions of opera I see on WP seem to have been written from a non-opera, 'theatre' point of view. I wonder whether we should have an 'Opera Project' definition to roll out when necessary? Ideally one that doesn't represent opera as the ugly step-child of (normal, straight etc,) music and drama. 
I have just put the following definition up on the (rather obscure?) List of basic opera topics. It was hastily written and perhaps other people can improve it or develop it? 
Opera is one of the performing arts (alongside music, dance and drama), and its special character as an art form derives from combining elements of the others, combined with visual effects. Opera is invariably live and given in a specially-equipped opera house or theatre. It is normally (electronically) unamplified to order to feature the beauty of the natural voice. While the scale can be greater or smaller - there are many different genres of opera - performance typically involves different types of artists (singers, instrumentalists and often dancers and actors) and technical staff. Usually an orchestra led by a conductor accompanies the singers. In contrast to spoken theatre, the opera world is international. German, French, Italian and English works are performed world-wide in their original languages, and artists travel from country to country performing.
Edits? Comments? -- Kleinzach 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of opera, A

message: As noticed by GuillaumeTell, User:Nrswanson has been adding text to a series of some 20-odd Verdi operas. I have checked Re Lear (an article about an opera never written). Falstaff and Aida and find that the text there has all been copied and pasted from Giuseppe Verdi, the official site . In the case of Re Lear it comes from . Given the scale of this activity (involving background sections, synopses and role lists) what is the best way of handling it? Is some kind of admin action needed? -- Kleinzach 01:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just revert it and leave a friendly notice for the user ( may work). We mustn't violate copyrights; however, the user may not be aware this is a problem, so we should assume good faith. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... the copyright rules here are not obvious, especially to newcomers.  Make sure not to bite potential participants! Fireplace 01:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people also have the notion the internet is all public domain. Anyway, I warned the user. If this continues, I'd head for ANI and get an admin's attention. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, I do agree - no-one wants to fry a new contributor - however the scale of the work is the problem. There are so many articles involved. It would take a considerable amount of time to go through all of them. Ideally the user should remove the material him/herself. Thanks to Heimstern Läufer for posting the formal warning on the user's Talk page.  -- Kleinzach 02:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say that all synopsizes, backgrounds etc added by Nrswanson are copy/paste from articles from www.giuseppeverdi.it/. I do not want to delete them but I think this is too much. They are exact “match” words by words. I ran through 8 articles.. and decided not to continue for the rest. What do you guys think? To me, it is OK to see "red" links or stubs, but it is so bad to see these kind of copy/paste that made up 60% (some 80%) of the article. To Nrswanson, no offense but you cant copy other people's works. -Jay 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done checking 8 articles! I only did 3. (I don't know how this user got so much material up in such a short time.) It does have to be removed. Can anyone suggest a way of dealing with it? I don't have time to go through all the pages reverting everything myself. (The user hasn't responded to any messages.)  -- Kleinzach 13:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted /edited Aroldo, Les vêpres siciliennes, Stiffelio, Luisa Miller, Oberto (opera) .. more when i have the time. - Jay 13:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just left a message on the user's page that I hope he or she will take to kindly. The standard warning templates get the point across, but they're not always exactly friendly, and I wanted to be sure that the user didn't feel picked on. --Kyoko 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've worked my way through the Verdi operas template from Un giorno di regno to Jérusalem.  I masnadieri was the only one that didn't need attention.  I retained the lists of roles, altering them to our usual style.  I was about to start on Il corsaro, but I see that the creators of the roles are also listed (near the bottom):  I don't think those names really violate copyright, so they should be put into a table with the roles in our usual style, and I feel like a break just now! --GuillaumeTell 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "Background" sections from Otello, La forza del destino, and Simon Boccanegra, which were all taken directly from the http://www.giuseppeverdi.it website mentioned earlier. --Kyoko 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Il corsaro now done - only 5 or 6 more to go, if that. --GuillaumeTell 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now dealt with all the other operas that weren't dealt with by Jay or Kyoko.  For the record, User:Nrswanson seems also not to have got round to Rigoletto or Un ballo in maschera and only added a "Background" heading in Don Carlos. --GuillaumeTell 00:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential copyright violations on a series of 20-odd Verdi operas

message: I have put the (newly created) page on Verdi's Re Lear up for deletion. This may be of interest so I'm noting it here. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 10:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Re Lear]] up for deletion