GuillaumeTell (talk | contribs) →List of operas performed by Wexford Festival Opera: del duplicate |
|||
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
After finishing this project, I have plans to create similar lists for [[Glyndebourne Festival Opera]], [[Buxton Festival]] and [[Opera North]], companies for which I also have complete data. --<font color="forestgreen">[[User:GuillaumeTell|'''Guillaume''']]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:GuillaumeTell|''Tell'']]</font> 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
After finishing this project, I have plans to create similar lists for [[Glyndebourne Festival Opera]], [[Buxton Festival]] and [[Opera North]], companies for which I also have complete data. --<font color="forestgreen">[[User:GuillaumeTell|'''Guillaume''']]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:GuillaumeTell|''Tell'']]</font> 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
:It looks good. The things that strike me as oddities are |
|||
:*the Date column header, presumably shortened so that you can have as many columns across the screen as possible. |
|||
:*the language column and the titles used where I think the language and name used in the performance should be the ones in the table and the alternative (often more common) name and language should be in the footnote. |
|||
To make room for the singers you could consider merging the director and designer columns and using line breaks to separate the names.--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:29, 24 January 2010
Composer and Opera of the Month Proposals
|
---|
Copyright clean up project
|
---|
Article alerts
|
---|
Archives | |
Index |
(For discussions relating to sound files see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Sound files)
Fair use examples
From WikiProject Opera:
- "Fair use images cannot be used for purely decorative purposes and they must be closely tied to the article text (a good example is at Concerto delle donne)."
There don't seem to be any fair use images in that article (two fair use audio snippets, though). Rl (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm rather baffled by the use of Concerto delle donne as an example - that article has virtually no connexion with opera. --GuillaumeTell 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with both comments. That stuff is left over from "ye olden days" of the the OP. Tomorrow I'll amend that section with something more appropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Dido and Aeneas GAR
It can be found right here. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I said at Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1, this is just about the worst, most irresponsible Good Article Review I have ever seen. It violates every guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. It is now one week since GamerPro64 wrote "I'll say what the "stuff" is tomarrow since I'm reading The Great Gatsby" and he/she has still not responded there. I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for someone to review what's going on there. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update following my prodigious squawking, another reviewer has stepped in with a very helpful review, which I completely agree with. You can find the review at the bottom of Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1. I've only been editing this article since this re-assessment began, but I'd like to try to address as many of the issues as I can over the next week. Even if we don't make it all the way to GA, at least the article will have been vastly improved. If any masochists are interested in helping, could you mention it here and say what you'll be working on so we don't duplicate work. The reviewer has offered to email some journal articles and I'm going to take him up on it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Opera singer stubs
WikiProject Stub sorting have broken down Category:Opera singer stubs and are re-tagging articles with the following new stubs:
- {{UK-opera-singer-stub}}
- {{US-opera-singer-stub}}
- {{Germany-opera-singer-stub}}
- {{Italy-opera-singer-stub}}
Not that big a deal, and potentially useful as that cat was huge. But there are some anomalies which I've raised with them here. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update: I've heard back from the stub sorters. All the categories are now in place and working properly. I'll list the new stubs here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Bayreuth Canon at FLC
Bayreuth canon is one of the current WP:Featured list candidates. Opera project members are welcome to comment.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Advice on synopsis
Hey all. I made a page on Donizetti's L'ange de Nisida because it piqued my curiosity and has allowed me to further procrastinate Lucia. I am looking at Ashbrook's synopsis, and it is not divided into acts even though elsewhere in the book L'ange is claimed to be in four acts. How should I write the synopsis? Just glob it all together, or leave it out entirely? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Better something than nothing provided you're able to make it sufficiently distinct from your source to avoid accusations of plagiarism. It might be worth checking the description of la favorita in the same book to see whether it indicates any shift in the act boundaries.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. It's hard to untangle all those knots because some of the characters were changed for La favorite. Thanks for the input. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that something is better than nothing, and a brief 'gist' synopsis would be adequate at this stage without division into acts. Voceditenore (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough—I'll give it a stab. Thanks! --Andy Walsh (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that something is better than nothing, and a brief 'gist' synopsis would be adequate at this stage without division into acts. Voceditenore (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. It's hard to untangle all those knots because some of the characters were changed for La favorite. Thanks for the input. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
More chickens coming home to roost
User_talk:Nrswanson#Unreferenced_BLPs - I haven't looked at any of the aliases. --GuillaumeTell 11:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've just sourced all the opera-related ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have all his aliases' talk pages on my watchlist. The only other one with unreferenced BLP notices is User talk:singingdaisies. I've sourced the opera-related ones and prodded the stub Otto Peter — I've been unable to find any reliable biographical sources. His only mentions seem to be on cast lists for recordings, and not many of them either. If anyone disagrees, feel free to remove the PROD tag, but be sure to add a source, even if only a biography in off-line liner notes. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Opera discographies
The various discography pages for major repertory works have recently become more and more complete and inclusive, which I think is great. My thought here is about proper credit for the company or entity responsible for creating the various recordings. Many of the older titles have long since been deleted by the company that made them and are available now on a variety of independent labels. My suggestion is that a separate column be added to the standard discography template to indicate the company that originally made the record. If the recording originated as a live broadcast or performance, that could be indicated here as well. The current label and catalog number column would continue to list the current or most recent version available and the format. Any thoughts? Thanks. Markhh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having worked on a large number of these tables recently (and reduced many to our "standard" 4 column width). I'm not sure that adding another column provides much value. If the point of having a "Recordings" table is to provide information on the recordings currently available for a particular opera, anything out-of-print would not need to be included and so the original entity issuing the recording is irrelevant. Most discographies include a reference to sources of these recordings. Isn't that enough info to provide in each table? Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, but to me the discographies exist to provide documentation of the recordings that have been made of those operas (especially the stand-alone lists) not just to provide a tool to find currently available recordings. In this case, including the record company, or other entity that made them, seems essential. Many out of print but important recordings are listed in the various discographies. Cheers! Markhh (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with Viva Verdi on this. The discographies are not supposed to be a shopping guide (nor is Wikipedia). In my view, they should be a detailed recording history of the work in tabular form. The recordings should be dated and listed by the date they were first made and the company that recorded it. Current re-issues (and the re-issue label) should be listed as extra information in the Label field for the original recording. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Mass deletion of unreferenced BLPs
There's a considerable brouhaha going on about several administrators who are mass-deleting all unreferenced BLPs: [1], [2], [3]. At first it was BLPs that had the tag since 2006, now they're deleting any article that hasn't been edited in 6 months. Judging by the response here, this will probably continue unabated and accelerate. So don't ignore warnings that an article you've created is an unreferenced BLP... if you want to keep it, that is. Note also that the bots and new page patrollers who are tagging these articles make a lot of mistakes, e.g. [4] or not noticing that the reliable source is actually in the External links section [5].
There's a list of unreferenced BLP opera articles here. Although note that the bot that produces it only runs about once a month, so there may be others. Worth checking to see if there are any you care about. I've added soources or removed inappropriate tags for some of them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering why I have about 60 deleted edits. Perhaps this is the explanation. At least there won't be a problem with potential editors being put off by the lack of the metaphorical low-hanging fruit with there being people supergluing them back onto the tree.
- I must say that I find such lists dispiriting. I notice that you and Kleinzach have been fixing some of the bigger names, but perhaps we should identify some self-confessed wikignomes who might be interesting in working on this. I've been toying with the idea of standing for admin when I hit 10K edits around the start of (Northern) Spring., It might be useful having someone in the project who can recover deleted material. I'm also reworking my user page and I shall make sure that anything that I note as having at least a moderate contribution by myself is on my watch list.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re the list here, I've been gradually adding to articles that are no longer unsourced to avoid duplication of work. I'm also saving a copy of the list, because when the bot updates the page, the deleted articles will no longer appear on it and we'll have no way of knowing which ones were deleted. That's the real problem with the mass deletions with no prior notification whatsoever. It's very hard to even find out what we've lost or are about to lose. The deletion logs for these admins are now huge. At least articles tagged for speedy delete or PROD appear here and are updated daily. By the way, we do have to admins on the project who can help out with retrieving deleted articles User:Moreschi and User:Antandrus if we need it in a hurry, but I'd love to see Peter as admin. Voceditenore (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the cleanup listings is a couple of months old I have taken the liberty to make an updated list based on articles tagged with {{WikiProject Opera}} or are in a subcat of Category:Opera singers. The list is currently at User:Rettetast/Sandbox87. Copy, move, advertise or do whatever you want with the list. Ping me if you want it updated. Rettetast (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Important changes to the biographies of living persons policy
Following the original mass-deletion, it is clear that the policy is going to be changed to allow, in fact require, the deletion of all unreferenced biographies of living persons. This has been endorsed by Jimmy Wales as well.[6]. The only question now is the mechanism and time-scale for it. The various proposals and discussion of them are underway at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. An interim summary of the outcome is here Note that this will almost certainly be extended to bios which are so poorly and unreliably referenced that they are de facto unreferenced.
This has considerable implications for the OP as there are so many bios of living singers under our banner. In some senses this is a pain primarily because it's happening very quickly and I'm not completely confident that WikiProjects will be properly kept informed of the articles deleted or under threat, although I and others have made repeated requests for this at the RfC. But on the whole, I welcome the increased rigor and quality that will be demanded. It also means that we can get rid of many bios by wannabe opera stars and their agents that are clogging up the encyclopedia. We can also delete all unreferenced cruft from both fans and detractors in articles on sight. In the course of checking the unreferenced opera BLPs here, I've found everything from blatant adverts for totally non-notable singers to blatant copyvios to bizarre additions such as this. Voceditenore (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've finally gone over to the rfc page and started supporting or opposing opinions. There is a definite change in the votes of more recent visitors to the page compared with the initial ones. I don't think that the whole matter should be regarded as a fait accompli.
- The current actions being taken by project memebrs to improve referencing is a good idea in itself, but if people do have opinions on the broader issue, then please go to the rfc and show which suggests yo support and which you oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- That may be a trick worth trying. But this means that we're spending time fooling the mechanism rather than workign properly. The self-promotional cruft should go as, of course, should the libellous stuff. But what is happenning now is that the tail of wikidramamongers is wagging the dog of constructive editors. We really need to work through all our biographies, a project that will take a very long time, but what is happenning is that we're being pushed into gestures and away from thinking systematically by the WP:POINTy behaviour of a small number of people. The most popular proposal at the rfc had garnered fewer than 130 support votes last time I looked. This is tiny compared with the number of active Wikipedians but people are trying to use it to bully this vast majority of editors into doing what they want.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Priority BLPs needing references
These immediately stood out (please add any others), for any wikignomes want to work on this. It usually takes about 5 minutes per article to provde a source. When/if, you've done one, check it off with {{y}}. Voceditenore (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've now added a second lot, all of whom are notable. Some of them are tagged {{refimprove}} rather than {{BLP unsourced}} but they are so poorly sourced that it's only a matter of time before the latter tag will be added instead. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
List
Jonas Kaufmann almost-instinct 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Henry Herford almost-instinct 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles now repaired
|
---|
Irina Arkhipova Note: was a blatant copyvio, have reduced to stub and referenced Samuel Ramey almost-instinct 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
List of operas performed by Wexford Festival Opera
If anyone has time, I'd appreciate comments here or on my Talk page on a list that I've started in my Gravelbox: List_of_operas_performed_at_the_Wexford_Festival. I'll be adding sources (WFO programmes and a couple of books). I'll also be de-redlinking operas and people with no WP articles.
A few questions have arisen which I'd like to settle before putting in the rest of the data:
- Are the columns arranged in a sensible order? For example, should the "Language" column follow the opera title?
- Are any columns unnecessary?
- Would an extra column listing a small number (2-3 max) of cast members be worth adding when there are WP articles? For example, singers such as Murray Dickie, Janet Baker, Norman Bailey, Juan Diego Flórez, Sesto Bruscantini and Mirella Freni have appeared at Wexford. The columns are reasonably flexible, and are based on work done by Michael Bednarek and Kleinzach for lists of composers' operas, and by Peter cohen for the Bayreuth canon.
After finishing this project, I have plans to create similar lists for Glyndebourne Festival Opera, Buxton Festival and Opera North, companies for which I also have complete data. --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks good. The things that strike me as oddities are
- the Date column header, presumably shortened so that you can have as many columns across the screen as possible.
- the language column and the titles used where I think the language and name used in the performance should be the ones in the table and the alternative (often more common) name and language should be in the footnote.
To make room for the singers you could consider merging the director and designer columns and using line breaks to separate the names.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC) --Peter cohen (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)