Talk:Gianni Schicchi

Recordings

I filled out the recordings section with all but the most obscure studio recordings sung in Italian. Since the list is relatively short I didn't see any reason to spin it off into a separate discography page. But if wiser heads feel this is indicated please feel free. Markhh (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Gianni Schicchi

I would like to have some idea on how to pronouce the title of this opera. Please without symbols1archie99 (talk)

Gee-on-ee Skitch-ee--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

J'ANN-EE SkEEK-EE! (Listen to Rinuccio's or Gherardino's or Zita's pronunciation on a recording of the opera). Let's see, here's Juan Diego Flórez singing Rinuccio's aria on Youtube Any other offers? --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:GuillaumeTell's version is correct. In Italian "gia" is pronounced as JA and "ch" is always pronounced as "K". Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my interest has been spiked by recent performances of opera by these beautiful young girls singing so beautifully on the BGT and AGT shows.1archie99 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Donati?

Why are we calling Buoso Donati by the name "Donati"? He is consistently referred to as "Buoso" throughout, even by nonrelatives (the Notary calls him "Messer Buoso", Master Buoso, for example)?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that people had surnames then in the same way that we do now. For example, the article refers to Dante (rather than Alighieri), and likewise, later, we have Michelangelo (not Buonarroti), and Leonardo (definitely not "Da Vinci"!). So Donati should be dropped. But then, what about Gianni Schicchi himself ("Schicchi, Schicchi, Schicchi")? --GuillaumeTell 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure of this article

One editor seems to want to create articles which are totaslly out of step with every other article except one, in that he wants to see his own structure of headings rather than than that which exists everywhewre else.

Amongst the editors of WikiProject Opera there seems to have evolved a "standard" by which "Composition history" (or similar) is followed by "Performance history", then "Roles", then "Synopsis", etc. etc. We even have a page devoted to article structure.

Now this editor seems to object when the article (which he seems to think "belongs" to him) is changed. And he reverts changes to the "standard" layout.

What does everyone else think? Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, I think it is extremely unhelpful to personalize comments in this way. Please confine this discussion to suggestions/rationale for the article structure. Secondly, the Opera Project guidelines here and here are precisely that, guidelines and suggestions. They also point out that the suggested sections (and their order) are "as appropriate to the opera". There is absolutely no reason why they have to be adhered to as if they were Holy Writ. They were developed years ago when the project was starting out and the articles were very basic with relatively brief performance history and background sections. They work fine for many (probably most) current articles.

  However, Featured Articles (the principal authors here are aiming to take this to Featured status) have different demands. They are much more detailed with extended ledes, more sections and more detail in each section. Operas themselves also differ in their type and structure and in their relative place in the genre's history. This means that there has to be a certain amount of flexibility both in the section heading titles and in their order.

  If you look at the lede in this article, it is actually longer and more detailed than the Background and Performance history sections combined in most opera articles. The article then helpfully starts out with basic background to the story and the opera, then goes straight to the roles and synopsis. The Performance History and Conception and compostion sections are very lengthy and detailed here, and in my view are much better placed after the synopsis, particularly for a popular opera like this one.

  As a side note, I would personally like to thank Brianboulton and Wehwalt, who are working to bring this article up to Featured status as they did with Tosca, and especially Brian. His hard work and dedication is responsbile for six out the seven Wikipedia articles on individual operas which have gained Featured status, as well as having created and brought to Featured status Mozart in Italy and List of operas by Mozart. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Voceditenore on this one. I personally always use the format mentioned by Viva-Verdi, but that is because the few opera articles I have created are stub- or start class at best (unfortunately I do not have Brianboulton's or Wehwalt's knowledge and/or access to printed and on-line sources to do much more than that), and the format is very helpful for structuring basic articles. However, for articles that aspire to FA status this basic format is very restrictive and probably not very well suited. I also join in the praise for both these contributors, and hope they will take on Madama Butterfly and La bohème in the future. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I too agree with Voceditenore's comments and commend Brianboulton and Wehwalt for their usual high quality work.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I heartily agree with the last three posts, especially regarding the fine work of Brianboulton and Wehwalt.Markhh (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Then there is absolutely no point in having WPO guidlines of any kind. We'll all do our own thing.

Alternatively, let's change the whole "suggested" structure around and employ Mr. Boulton's sense of organization for articles, since it seems to have proved itself to be so successful. I have no problem with that, but enjoy yourselves making all the changes. I'm not going to spend any time doing it. Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the structure of the article as it looks now. I would suggest that the opera project take a look at the operas that have been promoted to FA over the past couple of years, and if a consistent structure has been developed for these excellent articles, then it should be described at the opera project's article structure guideline. Of course when an article starts out and is short, not all of these sections will be filled in, and as Francesco says, there is nothing wrong with the way the shorter articles are currently structured. But as they become more comprehensive and evolve into better articles, the structure that has been successful at FA should be adopted. I also admire the excellent work done by Brian and Wehwalt and others on these articles. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Images

I think I've taken care of all but the navbox one. He's quoting the policy. I can't argue with that. What should we do about the navbox and its image?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt is referring to the comments by User:Fasach Nua at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gianni Schicchi/archive1, who objects to a lack of caption under Puccini's photo in the Navbox, quoting FA Criteria 3: "It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions." This is in my view a spurious interpretation of "policy". The title of the Navbox is the caption. I have commented in greater detail on this in FAC. If this turns out to be the sole obstacle to this excellent article attaining Featured status, we can look at adding a caption parameter to the opera composer navbox. (It might be useful for the one or two which do not use standard portraits, e.g. Template:Honegger operas.) I don't know how to do it, but perhaps someone else can add the parameter, if it actually becomes necessary. Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you and Brian are right, I panicked a bit too soon. After all, if this were a normal image format, what would we put to describe the image, er, succinctly? "Giacomo Puccini". I'm finding a slight Puccini connection to my latest, Carousel (musical), seems he tried to get the rights to Liliom, the basis of Carousel and was turned down.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Family relationships

I've just noticed, on re-reading this delectable article, that in the synopsis the dear departed Donati is referred to as Rinuccio's uncle. But was he? Rinuccio is the nephew of Bosuo Donati's cousin Zita. I'm getting a slight throbbing about the temples trying to work it out, but I'm not sure Rinuccio can have been Bosuo's nephew as well as Zita's. Abject grovel follows if I turn out to be talking rubbish. Tim riley (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, that in Italian culture, "uncle" can mean a more general family relationship, which no doubt Rinuccio has taken pains to foster.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That carries conviction. My apologies for dragging kippers across the trail. Tim riley (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Image

Since there aren't many images in this article, it strikes me that you could add an image of the opera house where Schicci has been presented the most? Just a thought. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a picture of the old Met, where the premiere took place, would be fine. I'm sure we have one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FA status

Congratulations to Brian, Wehwalt and all the editors for another job well done! Markhh (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, everyone helped. Another team effort for the opera lovers. Which is ironic given that I go to far more rock shows than operas ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

English translation

I'm not sure where this would best fit in, but the widely used English language translation of the opera by Anne Chotzinoff Grossman and her husband Herbert Grossman should probably be mentioned. The translation is included in the published Ricordi score.4meter4 (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of a secondary source which points to the significance of this translation?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well a quick google news archive search has it mentioned in a lot of production reviews, including the 1951 Met Revival. John Rockwell refers to it as the standard English translation in this review. I'll try and hunt down something better.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

{{Infobox opera
| italic title      = no
| name              = Gianni Schicchi
| genre_header      = [[Opera|Comic opera]]
| composer          = [[Giacomo Puccini]]
| image             = Schicchi original cover.jpg
| image_upright     = 
| alt               = 
| caption           = 
| genre             = 
| description       = One-act opera, {{nowrap|part of ''[[Il Trittico]]''}}
| librettist        = [[Giovacchino Forzano]]
| language          = Italian
| based_on          = [[Dante Alighieri|Dante's]] ''[[Divine Comedy]]''
| premiere_date     = {{Start date|1918|12|14|df=y}}
| premiere_location = [[Metropolitan Opera]]
}}

In 2014 I proposed this on my talk (s. archive), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support infobox inclusion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I'd Support, but not with that awful image. (I've now substituted the 1919 poster in the example above.) I would also use simply "Opera" as the genre. "Comic opera" is potentially misleading. Keep it simple. Yes, the subject is comic, but note that in the lead, it is expressed as "comic opera" not "comic opera". Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for comment and image. I think that it may be such a surprise to hear that Puccini wrote a comic opera that it might be worth showing prominently, but would listen to you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that fussed if others think it's appropriate. But I'd be interested to hear from Wehwalt and Brianboulton (who brought this to FA status) as to why they chose not to link explicitly to the comic opera genre in the lead. They may have a good reason for that. Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea about why we omitted the genre. I'm not going to make a fuss either way on the box--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, all, to article with just "opera" which can easily be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gianni Schicchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713183857/http://media.laopera.com/photo/?level=picture&id=964 to http://media.laopera.com/photo/?level=picture&id=964

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gianni Schicchi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526210819/http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6687.html to http://www.playbillarts.com/news/article/6687.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comic opera

Sorry but if it is called comic opera in the text it will also be in the side box or not?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.190.72 (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no visible field for type in the infobox. Stop your disruptive editing or you will be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Then the same talk concerns "La rondine"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.216.190.72 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender:: The template:Infobox opera does support the parameter |genre= and its aliases |type= & |genre_header=. They have been discussed at length at Template talk:Infobox opera. The content of that parameter is prepended to the second line of the infobox, before the composer. Compare the appearance: with and without. I can't see why that parameter should not be used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My error then, but my overall point still applies: the IP-hopper is repeatedly and disruptively making changes to the genre and infobox without WP:CONSENSUS. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Still, there is an actual page for 'comic opera', which may be a better implication for the header of this article (here, it just reads like a type of opera that's comedic, instead of its true form). Also try opera buffa or opéra comique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.131.123 (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This was discussed in 2015, above under Infobox. Please check if the arguments work for you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Refs

I don't seem to be able to fix refs 54 and 58; perhaps someone more accomplished can do so. Tony Holkham (Talk) 23:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have been done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the "Neef" reference is?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation of de:Sigrid Neef was added on 13 December 2010 by User:Brianboulton.
PS: I don't think that using template {{sfn}} and |ref=harv instead of doing the same with plain text and <ref>...</ref> is changing WP:CITEVAR. It retains almost the same appearance, but adds clickability and helps to discover unclear short citations, e.g. "Girardi" in the article could be clearer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Ser Amantio di Nicolao & the colleague whose WP username is presumably derived from the obscure fictchar

   user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao may or not amount to a somewhat problematic, despite (in a presumably reliable source) being noted as an outstandingly prolific (and IMO blameless) WP wp:Contributor, (IMO). The fictional character Amantio di Nicolao, in the Italian Opéra comique described in the accompanying article, was presumably the eponym for this notable colleague to whom I refer. And IMO, nothing about that is the least bit problematic.   As a separate matter, I am voicing my concern about an attendant anomaly, that would be mystifying,but for that fact pattern. To wit, the fictchar title redirects to the opera article Gianni Schichi, even tho the editor di Nicolao in question (presumably thus self-pseudonymized bcz of the colleague’s knowledge of, and/or amusement with, the fictchar.     For whatever reason

(neglect of,

removal of, or

lack of sufficient attention, by any sufficiently savvy editor —- to the matter,

mention of the eponymized character is lacking, and effectively, the redirect is a dead end for most users).

AdN is fairly hidden, to them —- and, most thoroughly, to those who won’t

(or can’t, on dead trees, and on at least some iPads)

do a within-wiki-page search, except via disciplined eyeballing.
—JerzyA (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(Please try to use shorter section titles.) A hatnote regarding Ser Amantio di Nicolao in this article as proposed is unnecessary and would violate Wikipdia's guideline WP:SELF, a subject that is familiar to JerzyA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Michael Bednarek and Gerda Arendt; to have a hatnote about a Wikipedia editor would violate Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it being done, and twice for that matter? (I reverted this edit on December 3 of last year) Is this a vanity thing?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's silly editor fandom, immaturity, and tendencies to borderline disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's put a stop to it. I mean, my username derives from Die Walküre but I don't need a hatnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Not going to take a side here, but that's obviously not comparable, as user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao is far much more notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No link to user space, and no hat note that only makes sense with knowledge of user space. This (featured) article is about an opera, and no side track to a user who chose a character from this opera for his pen name here is of any encyclopedic value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

He has a mainspace article, and Ser Amantio di Nicolao redirects here, so I think there's an argument to be made that a hatnote would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the argument's been made and as you can see from this page enough editors are unconvinced by it that there's unlikely to be consensus to add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Gramophone dead links

There are five references to Gramophone articles which all point to the URL http://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/focus/the-new-gramophone-digital-archive or https://www.gramophone.co.uk/static-pages/gramophone-s-digital-edition-and-archive. I had marked them as "dead" because they obviously don't lead to the cited reviews. User:DrKay then removed those tags with the edit summary, "it's not dead, it's inaccessible because it's behind a paywall". Even for people with subscriptions, those links do not lead to the articles. How should such citations be tagged? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the original links from the featured revision,[1] but as they are usurped and incompletely archived they are not much use. I recommend keeping the archived link to the 2001 review as it does include the quoted text. The usurped and archived links on the other four could be removed with the edit summary "use hard copy". The alternative is to do as I've done with the usurped link to the 1959 article: hide the usurped link as invisible text. DrKay (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The English-language sequel

If I were not totally committed to the Wikipedia principle that we assume that all editing is done in good faith, I might almost be tempted to suspect that the section entitled "English-language sequel" is nothing but a shameless attempt by a little-known contemporary composer to hijack Wikipedia for his own personal use as an advertising-platform for hawking his work; an abuse which Schicchi himself might have suggested. In order to help the composer avoid being unjustly suspected of such unseemly conduct (which was, I believe, punishable in the distant past when Wikipedia was young, with amputation and exile from Firenze) I am subito deleting the offending section. If you object, feel free to tell me about your objections here! Best wishes to all, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of orchestration

I'd have thought a featured article about an opera would cover the orchestration and instruments used. According to IMSLP the originally Ricordi-published orchestration is 3(1=picc)3(3=cor)3(3=bass)2 4340 orchestra + timps perc celeste harp, winds and brass later reduced by Panniza (1954) to 2121 2210. — Jon (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please feel free to add it. Seems rather a standard orchestra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)