Belcanti

Andrea Bocelli

I made an error about him not being listed on the popera article, my mistake, something however we all do at times. Regardless, the article on Andrea Bocelli has also been as it was originally for a while with him being listed as a operatic singer etc as it has just been reverted back to by another user. As I said before, please do not revert it back again before it is discussed and decided upon. And please use the articles talk page to discuss with others any such change. I will also add though that on checking the Operatic pop article (which is the correct article title and not popera which you keep adding) edit history, Andrea Bocelli was added into that list by an anonymous IP user whose one and only edit was to add Bocellis name (unsourced) as being an Operatic pop star.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, try using the phrase "Operatic pop" as Tangerines cites above, and cite the link you proveded by putting it after the term, and I think that is a reasonable compromise here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Further to your messages on my talk page. I wasn't implying anything about you being anyone other than Belcanti. Quite why you should think that I don't know. If I wanted to say something to you then I would say it, not imply it. I was merely stating that Bocellis name was added to the list of "Operatic pop stars" by an IP User whose one and only edit was to do that. That IP user has not returned to edit wikipedia and that IP user did not cite any source when adding Bocelli to that list.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your comment on Jayron2s talk page about me - please re-read what I said above, as from what you said and also from your adding the link popera you don't seem to understand how wikipedia works with links. I said that the correct title for the article is Operatic pop and not Popera. Again you seem to have for some reason mis-read or misunderstood what I actually said to you and have imposed another meaning on it than I intended. Perhaps if I explain further - Popera is merely a redirect to the Operatic Pop article, it is not the name of the article. Operatic Pop is the correct article title and not Popera. Direct wiki links should be used, which in this case is Operatic pop, and not redirects (popera).♦Tangerines♦·Talk

Thank you for your messages, and thanks for the help in changing the capitalization. I am about to start again and have added the "in use" tag back onto the article. With regard to the criticism section, perhaps I haven't made myself totally clear as to what I intend doing (and I am working my way down the article so it will be one of the last things I do) with that section. I have no intention of changing the content that is already in that section, just adding to it. And making sure it is a lot clearer for those people (the majority of people) who read that article knowing nothing of any criticism of his voice. You will be able to see the newer version of it once I have finished. However, you are just one of a number of users who have worked on that section recently, and if I were to let you know any changes beforehand then I would also have to let numerous other users know the same and that simply isn't practical. You are quite welcome to correct any errors I make once I have finished though. Thank you, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know as a matter of courtesy, as you are interested in the topic, that I have made a lot of progress on the Andrea Bocelli article. There is still some work for me to do (slightly more on the bio and then the criticism section), but I am nearing the end, and I would appreciate your holding off making any changes until I have finished. I will leave a message on here when I do so.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 06:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your message. Yes I know that composers are usually called by their surnames only. However, each article uses their full names including first name and I decided that it would be best to use their full names bearing in mind that many readers of the article come from backgrounds knowing nothing of the topic. And I think that needs to be borne in mind first and foremost, which is why I believe the full names should be used regardless of what the composers are usually called. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it does seem the best way in this instance. Maybe if the first time the composers name appears it is (of course) wiki-linked with their full name, but then after that their surname only would need to be mentioned? I will check as much as I can to see if I have been doing that, if not perhaps you could change them once I've finished this mammoth task? I am just about to start what will hopefully be my final "big push" on the article. I will also have a look at the link you provided too.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I have finsihed. As you will see I have expanded the criticism section. I have though changed some of the wording to reflect what was said in the articles whilst also expanding upon where the criticism came from. For instance, adding Anthony Tommasini and specifically which performance he was reviewing. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. The bit about his marriage etc, yes indeed best kept in the one place, I suppose I was merely trying to expand the "early life" section and include details that weren't connected with his career. With regard to the NY Times and the letters, to be honest when I added them I wasn't too sure about their "validity". My reason for adding them was that they showed "every day music fans" (for want of a better expression) views on the criticism - both in support of the criticism and not. I understand what you are saying, but am still a little unsure whether they should be in there or not? I will also have a good look at the nysun.com link you gave too. The discography, yes fully agreed, I think it would be a good idea to have a new section like you suggest.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Verdi - Caro nome.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Verdi - Caro nome.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Verdi - Caro nome.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Verdi - Caro nome.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)