User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

still more past topics...

ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices

Not sure whether you've seen this but

[1] and so on and so on. Someone else with a hidden agenda. --GuillaumeTell 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I had seen it. I've just written a reply on the OP talk page, although I'd much rather be working on my Johann Georg Conradi article, sigh). Hopefully, he'll return to discuss it there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Opera assessments

I don't know whether you are around? I've been trying to craft a sensible approach (proactive compromise?) to assessments that everyone can agree on. At the moment I'm thinking we should restrict written assessments to 'B-class' (of which there are now about 75) - three of us took a month to rate the 50-odd articles of the Wagner Project, so even doing the 'B's would be a substantial job - not use 'C-class' at all, and have nominal assessments (as now) for 'start'. (Stub/FA/GA processes would remain as at present.)

Is this something you think you might be able to go along with? Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kleinzach 08:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been in the US for a few days, but have been checking the opera-bot results up to Sept. 15th via the hotel computer. Am back at my real desk now. Yes, your compromise sounds quite sensible to me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stubs: Russian and Czech operas etc

Hi. For Russian and Czech operas etc, depending on how many there are, I would suggest creating upmerged templates but this depends on how many we have at present and of we are going to have over 60 for each eventually. Could you offer an insight into how many stubs there are for each? Otherwise keep using opera-stub. The Bald One ^{White cat} 21:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub situation

I was just wondering what your personal thoughts were on the stub situation and what you thought of my efforts. I get the feeling Kleinzach is pretty unhappy with me. My intention was to help and not to step on anyone's toes. I know I went ahead and did a lot of recategorizing with the stubs a bit earlier than was absolutely necessary. However, I figured that since the stub sorting project had already begun adding the new stubs to articles it was just best to jump on the wagon and get everything under one system rather than having two systems going simultaneously. Your feedback is appriciated.Nrswanson (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the sorting you did. WPSS had done so many already, and within a day, another member there had gone to town and sorted zillions more of them (correctly). It was pretty much a fait accompli. It would have been entirely impractical to reverse them all. So, I agree it was better to just get on with it and get they new system stabilized. Both you and I mentioned that we'd be happy to help with the sorting, and no one from OP objected to us doing that. Re the new {{Opera-company-stub}}, it would have been better to propose it first both to WPSS and OP (something to remember for the future). But having said that, I think it was a good idea, and useful. No one seems to have made any specific objections to it on either side.

I was glad to see that §hep who had done one of the big bot runs for the OP reassured us that the new stubs wouldn't be a significant problem for future runs. And your statistics tables showed that the new stubs didn't interfere with producing statistics for OP, and indeed might have made it easier. The main brouhaha from four OP members at the start of the discussions was more over the abrupt manner in which WPSS seemed to be implementing the changes and the re-stubbing of a few "start" articles. Apart from one of those four, who was (and presumably still is) implacably opposed to any stub changes whatsoever, they basically said they didn't have strong feelings one way or another about the new stubs themselves. They just didn't like the way WPSS was going about it. I'm going to try to get the discussion at OP wrapped up, get OP approval to add the stub changes to the OP guidelines, and then archive the discussion so we can move on to discussing more important and relevant (and fun) stuff. The talk page has become very daunting. Frankly, if someone were thinking of becoming a member right now, it might... er... make them think twice.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reassuring me. The member in question above actually suggested that I leave the project, which rather hurt my feelings. I agree that the more formal process at WPSS would have been better and I will do that in future (although I am hoping no more new stubs will be necessary). Hopefully we can all move on and enjoy editing together happily. Right now I am going to make a concerted effort to improve our singer stubs. If we can get that number down to below four hundred than I don't think WPSS will be asking for further stub splits.Nrswanson (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that comment to you, and I certainly don't share that view or the sentiments behind it. You're right though, best to just move on and get cracking on the singer stubs. Geez! Some of those articles are a real mess. How about if we find one or two that are prominent singers, preferably dead, whose articles are borderline start as suggestions for the October SoM. The reason I say "preferably dead" is because active singers have a fan base (or quite demented detractors) who can be very obstreperous, and I don't think I can face another WP battle royal right now.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps you wouldn't mind selecting some suitable candidates. I am not sure that I am the most popular person at the project right now and it would be a shame to have such a worth while exercize snubbed just because people aren't too happy with me. I'm not leaving the project by any means but I am going to try and be a little more low key for the next month on the project page.Nrswanson (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera and our standpoint in consensus

Hi, I don’t know how to say but I think someone should talk to Kleinzach. I think he is withdrawing from Opera project – look at his user page. He has done a lot of work. He is like the key person in Opera project by maintaining the articles, corpus listing, doing assessments and also key person in Wiki project page itself. There are times we have compromise with what we want in order to save a good member – at least that is what I will do in the real life. There are many unorganized projects in Wiki, projects without “somebody” taking care it. At the end, the project is dead. I do not want to see that to happen in Opera project, and for that, I believe we need Kleinzach to continue doing what he always do. I am writing this to you, hoping that you could consider or at least talk to him. When I said, “compromise”, I mean, if the “stub tag by language” isn’t that important compared to losing a good friend, so be it. I genuinely feel that losing a good friend to something that is less important is not worth at all, seriously. I just don’t understand why the tags have been placed in our articles without consensus. We haven’t agreed to it, we are still in the middle of the discussion. That is why I said we have to vote first. I was surprised to see my “watchlist” full with list of “tag added” even I have said clearly that we need an agreement with our active members. I need your opinion about this. - Jay (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, I think it would be more helpful for you to take this issue about consensus to the OP talk page. All the options and pros and cons have been clarified. There's no reason why you can't now formulate a position there and ask for members to indicate their agreement or disagreement. But remember that even if there turns out to be a clear consensus of OP members against using the new categories, consensus within a project is different from consensus between projects or within Wikipedia. The new stubs are an issue between two projects. Consensus has to be reached between them. And consensus in those cases isn't determined by a vote - a good thing since WPSS has 340 active members.;-) There are ways to take the dispute higher up if that's the course you want to take. It's best to ask an administrator for advice about that - both Moreschi and Antandrus are admins and members of OP. Antandrus is also a member of the Classical Music project. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin J. Martin

This doesn't really fit into the deletion wizard categories. I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin J. Martin and deleted Benjamin J. Martin. But I also nominated the following related page in the same discussion because it is a substantial duplicate of Benjamin J. Martin (created by the same editor -Alymcgee):

Benjamin Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you delete that too, please? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Gone. In future you can tag this kind of page as {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added {{db-afd}} to my workshop. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Austin (singer)

Great job with Elizabeth Austin (singer)! Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

El-A-Kru

You convinced me to withdraw my AfD nomination for said article. Not entirely sure how withdrawing nominations work, but I think your edits will keep it safe from deletion. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how it works either, but I've seen your 'withdraw nomination' comment at the AfD discussion. I'm sure the closing admin will see it. You might want to move it to the top - right after your original nomination for greater prominence. But it probably doesn't matter that much. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism on French kings

Voceditenore: I noticed your last revert on Louis XIV. We need to semi-protect both Louis XIV & Louis XVI whose pages are vandalised every day, several times. How do we go about it? Frania W. (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you can request it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You need to show them that the vandalism from IPs is frequent and continuing now. It shouldn't be too hard looking at the histories. They also want to see that the majority of recent IP edits are vandalism not constructive edits, which also looks like the case to me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lombardi / Jerusalem synopsis

Don't worry, I'm in the process of completely re-writing the synopsis for Jerusalem having taken the Lombardi synopsis, added the English trans. to the Italian arias and integrated them into the piece.

I agree that Jerusalem is significantly different; right now, doing the synopsis is a work in process and I'll finish it today, but if I don't save as I go along, I find that I have to re-log on, etc.

PS: I have the Gardelli Lombardi libretto and Fabio Luisi Jerusalem libretto to work from and compare.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you're doing terrific work with these Verdi articles. They've been neglected for quite a while, except by the vandals of course. Have you tried working on drafts in a personal sandbox or sub-page? I find it really helpful in taking the pressure off mainspace editing. Here's an example of one of mine: User:Voceditenore/Articles in progress. Best Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, thanks! Writing in Word is all very well, but you can't get the correct punctuation to appear on the article when it's pasted in.... I'm having a lot of fun working my way through these Verdi articles and listening/watching at the same time. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Jean-François Delmas

I went ahead and copy pasted the info for you.Nrswanson (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Charles, because Gobin is Tenor. Probably the mistake comes from "Carteggi Pucciniani", where a "Delmas" is named among the secondary roles of the first Rondine, but the wrong name - "Jean-Fr. Demas" - is added in the index. --Al Pereira(talk) 16:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help in what I am editing, I have added and contributed through several articles,but I have noticed your re arrangement of Mrs. Al Kawas article. So I will appreciate your help if you may from time to time, thank you. Editorial7 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nico Muhly

The line about the topic of the opera appears to be plagiarized from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/arts/music/28rufu.html --Larrybob (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That may well be, but I didn't add it. It was added by an anonymous IP (206.67.182.142) here [2]. All I did in my edit [3] was to add the "citation needed" tag and remove the "Mr" from "Mr. Muhly". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize that - I was just trying to let you know that I was handling the citation issue. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my communication.--Larrybob (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice requested

Can you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Tosca_recording and advise me a bit? I'm not quite sure how to move forward. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo license

You seem to have put a mistaken license on Image:Flora Perini 2 cropped.jpg. The license tag you used was for works by the US Federal Government. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't know whether to use it or not since the source was the Library of Congress. Is it sufficient just to have the full LoC information and links in the summary and use an ordinary {{PD-US}}? If so, I need to change several other photos from the LoC that I've uploaded. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Library of Congress site is a repository for a wide variety of images from many different sources. A great many, though not all, are in the public domain. One needs to look at the collection or image description page. In the example of Image:Flora Perini 2 cropped.jpg, it notes it is from Bain News Service-- an old newspaper photo company, not a government agency. The phrase "No known restrictions on publication" confirms it is public domain. (The Library of Congress is the repository of record for US copyrights, so if they don't know of any restrictions on a US work we take their word. Note that there is some material not confirmed to be public domain on the LOC site, for example a description page saying "Publication may be restricted".)

Rules of thumb: image is confirmed to be public domain if the image is any of these three: 1)Work of a US Federal government agency, 2)Pre 1923 US work, 3)Described by the LOC as having "no restrictions" or similar phrase. PD-USGov should be used for only the first of these three cases; PD-US for the others. Yes, including a back link to the Library of Congress source page as you did is good policy. Thanks for asking, hope this helps. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've all fixed the remaining ones now. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas)

Do you think this needs revising with your more detailed explanation? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could probably use a rationale section and some slight rephrasing. I'll have a think about the wording once all the dust settles. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bel canto

If you have the time, I was hoping you might read through my rewrite of the bel canto article. I would appriciate any feedback you might have to offer. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help and praise. Is there any aspect of the topic that you think hasn't been covered sufficiently? Obviously there is always room for improvement/expansion, but I just wanted to make sure the overall picture was presented accurately and clearly (a difficult thing to do in this convoluted topic).Nrswanson (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think for now it's fine. Less is more in this case. It gives an overview of how the term is used, corrects some misconceptions, and has sufficient references for the reader to follow up. Given how convoluted the topic is, adding more could make it more tangled, not more informative.

Another thing: Ancient vocal method. I think this should go to AfD. It was created by an SPA/COI editor basically to publicize his self-published book. He also sprinkled references to this completely dubious concept of his own invention around Wikipedia, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]. Presumably it was also in his autobiography which has now been deleted twice [8]. I googled "Ancient vocal method" (general, news, scholar, and books). Absolutely nothing comes up except the Wikipedia article, its mirrors, and the web site of the article's creator. He created the article on July 19 2007, the day before his book (Anatomy of Bel Canto: Stroke of the Mask, Chest Support, and Proof for the Ancient Method) came out. What do you think? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I say nominate it for deletion. And thanks for your feedback. The one area that I thought might be beneficial to the bel canto article is on singer improvisation in the embelishments/coloratura. Nrswanson (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Need fixing Isobel Buchanan

Hi, I just created Isobel Buchanan article. Need your help to fix it.. (what else.. grammar and also my writing style). Thanks - Jay (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. ;-) But it needs more references from independent sources, like reviews, articles about her, etc. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the editing. As for the reference, I will keep looking. I know the current references are not good enough but it is not easy to find good reference for her. She doesn’t even have a fan site. Btw, thanks again - Jay (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Cesira Ferrani photo

Is it possible that a fair use rationale for this pic could also be made to use it at the Manon Lescaut article? We could use some more pics there. Nrswanson (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, you're only safe with fair use when the image is used to indentify the subject of the article or a unique historical moment. But I can get you some public domain illustrations for it tomorrow. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that it might be argued under picturing a "historical event" if the picture was from the opera's premiere. Of course the photo might not be from the time of the premiere. Anyways, you have been super helpful with pictures and copy edits. I appriciate your contributions.Nrswanson (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it wasn't from the premiere. It's a posed portrait. Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

re: thank you

You're welcome. I'm always glad to help out :) Copana2002 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Marcello Giordani

If the musical artist infobox is not the correct one to use for an opera singer, could you please let me know which infobox should be used. An infobox helps our readers by providing a simple standard place to highlight the information about the person. The reader can then peruse the entire article to get more details. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the consensus at the Opera project (like the Composers and Classical Music projects) has been not to use them at all for classical musicians and composers. [9]. Apart from an official web site (normally only applicable to contemporary performers), all the unambiguous information is easily available to the reader in the first sentence. Having said that, I dislike infobox tussles, and if you think it's really important to have one in the article, I won't revert. I would suggest, though, using something similar to the ones you'll find here, which are adaptations of the plain infobox person and infobox artist respectively. If you're interested, there's currently a discussion on the subject at the Village Pump, which grew out a recent discussion on the subject at MoS, and an essay by an Opera Project member here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Opera re-formatting

I will be around tommorow but I will have limmited time the next several days after that. Honestly after this coming weekend is better for me. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)