Talk:Operalia

2009

The winners from the 2009 Pécs/Budapest competition should be added. 83.76.194.241 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 

2010

The winners from the 2010 Milano (La Scala) competition should be added. The 2009 list is, still, missing too. 83.76.194.241 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

2011

The winners from the 2011 Moscow competition should be added. The 2009 and 2010 lists are, still missing! :-( 83.76.255.179 (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

2012

Please update the page to include all winners up to 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.55.94 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

2013

Please update the page to include all winners up to 2013. This wikipedia page is getting useless...! 83.77.253.211 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No use whinging – fix it! "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia everyone can edit." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2015

The 2015 contest was just held. The winners are listed here: http://www.operaliacompetition.org/newsOperalia/detallenews/new/47. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Will try to improve

I'll add some sources to this and I'll create some new articles for the red link-ed artists if I'll find enough sources to cover BLP. Robertgombos (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Recipients in the lead section

The lead section used to contain a random selection of Operalia award recipients, a holdover from the first version from 2009 (which implied the competition was the reason for their success). The competition had a vast number of winners and other price recipients. Wikipedia is not the place to judge who of them was, is, or will be "important," "known," or "famous." Notable winners are linked in the extensive lists. OrestesLebt (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with the inclusion of well-known recipients in the lead if they are singled out in references on the competition as notable past winners. That would seem to reflect the guidelines at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section in regards to emphasis in relation to sources. That said, I have no strong objection to removing the names either. I did revert the removal, but only because two references were lost in the edit. The sources should not have been removed. Please find a way to integrate the sources into the article. We shouldn't remove references that are of value. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources are back again, although I don't think they provide anything substantial that isn't covered in other sources. OrestesLebt (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)