Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 29

message: Here's a rough draft of a posible section:
::Under current Wikipedia policy we cannot use non-free publicity images to illustrate articles about contemporary opera singers, composers, and librettists. Nor can we use images from album or book covers which depict them (except in very restricted cases). We therefore very much welcome contributions of good quality photographs which the photographers/copyright holders are willing to release under a free license. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your work, you grant permission for others to use, copy, and share the photograph freely, and even potentially use it commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves. A free license only concerns copyright, and does not restrict the option to take action against anyone who uses the photograph in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. If you grant a free license, we will credit you for your work, and if applicable, and provide a link back to your website. If you would like to contribute a photograph under free license, please leave a note on the Opera Project Talk Page
There could also be an addition such as:
::We are particularly looking for photographs to illustrate the following articles: Article Name;  Article Name; Article Name...
Best, Voceditenore 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I know it's complicated but dare I suggest cutting the text roughly in half? That way people are much more likely to read it. The 'We are particularly looking . . . ." could go in the Can you help? (8) section. -- Kleinzach 06:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot use publicity images to illustrate articles about contemporary opera singers, composers, and librettists unless they have been released under a free license. To improve the quality of those articles, we very much welcome contributions of good quality photographs which the photographers/copyright holders are willing to release under such a license. You would retain the copyright of your work but grant permission for others to use and publish the photograph freely. We will credit you for your work, and if applicable, provide a link back to your website. If you can contribute a photograph under free license, please leave a note on the Opera Project Talk Page.
Best, Voceditenore 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not a bad idea. We definitely need something like this. Something else that might be worth mentioning is the need to be avoid fair use "galleries", both of images and of audio clips. Maria Callas, until recently, had a fair use image gallery that was not permissible, and on plenty of pop music articles I've had to delete entire fair use sound galleries of maybe twenty clips, for which there is no justification. I haven't seen this happen yet with opera articles, but we should try to prevent it before it does. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 12:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... I tried an experiment by putting that shortened message on the talk page for Juan Diego Flórez. And I got an almost immediate response.  Someone added a fair use image of one of his CD covers! (Sigh) I guess the message really needs to point out explicitly that CD covers are not free images. I guess I'll nip over to the JDF talk page tomorrow and add that bit. Best, Voceditenore 18:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems fine to me. Best, Voceditenore 12:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to the project page, under the Articles section, item 12.6. -- Kleinzach 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Section on Opera Project page?

message: The bot has finished running through the category list and adding your project banner.  By my count, there are 3,565 articles.
The next step, of course, is maintenance.  One of the benefits of having all your articles tagged is that the bot can make periodic reviews of the articles and let you know where there are ones in need of improvement.  The bot currently does this for three or four projects.  It produces two lists - for an example, let's look at WP:CM.  The two pages it produces are a long list of all articles needing cleanup, wikification, sources, whatever - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/To-do list; and a short list, which is a random subset of the long list suitable for including in a "To-Do" template - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Small to-do list and to see how we use the short list in a "to do" template, see WT:LGBT. Pages that may be up for deletion will show up on both.
Another part of maintenance is to review the categories for new articles that have been added to the cats, but don't yet have banners.  The LGBT WikiProject does a periodic run and produces a report - see WP:LGBT/NP.  WP:Chicago does the run and automatically adds the banner.  The bot is set up to run either way.
Let me know if you'd like either of these options set up, or if the bot has made any serious errors in it's tagging.  Thanks much!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have thought that both of the above options would be useful.  Something else that I've noticed (if we're going to dip a toe into the assessment water at some point) is a nice table of stubs, FAs, unassessed, etc. - see the assessment page at the Yorkshire project for an example from another project that hasn't started assessment but has been putting up banners.  --GuillaumeTell 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those statistics are gathered by a different, very useful, bot.  I haven't done it for a project, but instructions for using that bot are at: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to SatyrTN for a terrific job. (Great to have a techy, sorry technocrat, on our side for once!) I agree with GuillaumeTell that both maintenance options will be probably be worthwhile. (We will need to discuss the implications of all this.) Kleinzach 12:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Done 

message: Hello, over the past few days I've done a translation of this article from the French, but there are some parts of the original article that leave me puzzled. It's partly because I'm more of an anglophone than a francophone, and partly because I just don't know much about that time period. I would really appreciate another pair of eyes to compare the English and the French to see what I've missed or gotten outright wrong, because I've gotten a bit burned out right now from looking at the thing. Thanks, --Kyoko 18:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look, though my French is of 'Allo 'Allo qualities. Folantin is better at this sort of thing than I. Perhaps Grove has something I can add. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 08:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Initial impressions are extremely positive. Nice work! I think the big problem is the nightmare of what we do with French capitalisation in some of those titles (it's been discussed here before). I'll play around with it and you should see some of those red links turn blue. Any other specific problems you suspect, Kyoko? --Folantin 09:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I've left a note on the talk page as regards the first picture (someone needs to transfer it to Commons, assuming the license is valid). But yes, very impressive stuff, bravo! Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 09:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you all for the compliments! One thing that I don't quite get is the subject of the independence of the theatres. I understand to some extent that in the past, plays were subject to the scrutiny of the crown, but I don't know quite when that stopped. There is a phrase in the French article, during the Restoration, that says "De 1815 à 1818 le Théâtre royal italien a retrouvé son indépendance." I don't understand how to reconcile that statement with the following paragraph where it says that Catalani's privilège was revoked and the theatre shut down. It's as if the theatre is independent of royal control and yet it's not, and it makes for confusing reading. --Kyoko 15:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking help with [[Comédie-Italienne]] 

message: This article is currently a Featured Article Candidate, if anyone wants to have a look. Adam Cuerden talk 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gilbert and Sullivan]] 

message: We may get a couple of these, so keep an eye out...  -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercury was on my list of 35 special exceptions so absolutely no bot problem there. (I've dealt with all of them now.) I gave the benefit of the doubt to Vernon Midgley - probably not very notable anyway. -- Kleinzach 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops :)