Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

Archives Table of Contents

Full linkage composer navboxes

I have noticed that WP:OPERA has a preference for a type of navbox in the standard infobox position (e.g. {{Verdi operas}} or {{Handel oratorios}}) I have recently begun creating more complete footer style navboxes such as {{George Frideric Handel}} and {{Giuseppe Verdi}}. Was there a decision somewhere against footer style navboxes. Also, why do the biographies tend to have neither until I place mine on them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can speak only for myself, but it happened only yesterday that I looked at Messiah and thought Handel should have a navbox. Thank you! Also for Verdi, of course! I will add Handel's to the other Messiah articles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I added Handel to the four articles assisting Messiah, and two to Handel Festivals (Halle, Göttingen), and added Verdi's non-operatic works. The article on Quattro pezzi sacri is a challenge, politely speaking, in the year of his bicentenary, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add each article to {{George Frideric Handel}} when you add the template to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would not mind some assistance arranging the templates as I create them. This Handel one seems particularly in need of organization.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, we haven't had any discussions about full-linkage ones since I've been a member (2008). The current opera navboxes were originally developed in late 2006 [1]. There were discussions here (2009) and most recently here (2011) about the opera navboxes and whether to make them horizontal footers or keep them as vertical headers. The general consensus was to keep them vertical, partly because of the immense amount of work required to change everything over + re-add {{Italic title}} manually to all the articles switched to horizontal ones. Having said that, I kind of prefer the horizontal ones. They give much more flexibility as to what to use for the lead image. Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think many people who work a lot with classical and opera music are probably use to the infobox position. Many other users are trained to look for templates like these at the bottom of pages. If there are no issues, I will continue creating footer style templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that all the dropdown boxes are of single lists, eg Donizetti operas? Whereas the footers you are creating have multiple sections? If so, there's a natural distinction between the two, and thus current placings sees natural. ie imo it all looks good to me :-) almost-instinct 10:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the bottom navboxes, because they have greater flexibility for grouping than the narrow space where readers expect an infobox (hint hint). In {{Franz Lehár}}, the mixture of English and German titles looks a bit strange to me. - I would like to add years to the works of Wagner and Handel, but - especially for Wagner - don't know which one to take, start of composition or premiere, sometimes that's a big difference, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't date usually the premier date, if available?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Navigation boxes: "As with other opera lists, the operas are arranged in chronological order by the date of first performance, but date of composition may be used in individual cases if there is a significant gap between composition and first performance. What constitutes a significant gap will vary according to circumstances, but the most obvious examples are operas such as Eccles's Semele which were first performed long after their composer's death." Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tony (and all), I've created Category:Opera navboxes (a sub cat of Category:Opera templates) for the individual opera ones like {{Carmen}} so we can can easily find them. I've changed to that cat for several of them, but I would appreciate it if you round up the rest and put them in that cat and use that for any future ones. It should only be used for ones of that type, though. Any others like templates for source works, e.g. {{The Grapes of Wrath}} or individual composers, e.g. {{Giuseppe Verdi}} should probably remain or be placed in the more general Category:Opera templates categories for now. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera navigation template usage

I have now made hundreds of multimedia templates. Previously, we discussed the usage of biographical footer style navboxes. I would like to encourage one additional consideration by this project. I find WP:OPERA to be inconsistent with other projects in its template usage in terms of its most prominent works. Those works that have spawned the most topics notable enough to have wikipedia articles are welcomed on the pages of the authors in other related fields. E.g. at Oscar Wilde or Fyodor Dostoyevsky you can see how other projects accept these templates on the author's pages. I have now created 10 traditional opera templates: {{Der Ring des Nibelungen}}, {{Parsifal}}, {{Rigoletto}}, {{Pagliacci}}, {{Aida}}, {{Carmen}}, {{The Magic Flute}}, {{Madama Butterfly}}, {{The Tales of Hoffmann}}, {{The Merry Widow}} and one Rock opera {{Tommy}}. I have tried putting about five or six of these on the authors' pages, but have been rebuffed in the majority of my attempts. Can you explain the project's logic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean for example, adding {{Rigoletto}} and {{Aida}} to Giuseppe Verdi? I can see how some readers might find it useful, actually. As long as the templates are added in their collapsed state, I see nothing wrong with it all. Which composer articles have these individual opera templates been removed from? Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Might there be concern that eventually the Verdi page will have templates for Aida Rigoletto Otello Falstaff Traviata Trovatore Macbeth....you see, I'm sure, where I'm going here.... almost-instinct 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to see a stack like at Oscar Wilde, we would likely have to include Opera composer links in the main body of the template, for templates sourced from other media. E.g., the first line at {{Ivanhoe}} would have to be changed to Ivanhoé (Rossini) · Der Templer und die Jüdin (Marschner) · Il templario (Nicolai) · Ivanhoe (Sullivan). That would take a lot of work and possibly some consensus along with people outside of OPERA. Don't think that is the way to go at this time or at least it is well beyond what I am trying to do now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but as long as they're parked at the bottom and collapsed, they're harmless, and like I say, some readers could find them useful. Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First keep in mind that many of the operas that you mention are derivatives so the template would belong on the Shakespeare page and not the Opera author page. It is rare when the opera is considered the work most people are deriving from. Also, note that since Shakespeare page would have so many, the individual plays are not currently on that page. The most I have seen on a page has been at Charles Dickens. About half of those were ones I created. At some point, I will probably talk with the Shakespeare folks about having 25 or 30 templates on the page, but that is another issue. IIRC, {{Carmen}}, {{The Magic Flute}}, {{Madama Butterfly}} and {{The Tales of Hoffmann}} have all been removed from the author pages. I don't think there are even 10 more source operas that have 4 or more notable derivative pages. Often when I do a notable opera, I end up with something like {{Turandot}} that is not considered to be an opera source. For the few that are truly considered sources of other works, I think we should put them on the author pages. We should keep in mind that for many authors, their greatest operas are derivatives of other sources, which may explain confusion about why this policy is different for operas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I ususally use autocollapse, which means it will collapse in the presence of another template. All of these authors should have biographical templates including all their great works. So these additional templates should collapse.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I'll be interested to hear what the Shakespeare folks have to say when you propose adding 25 or 30 templates to the Bard's page. :) Yes, I see what you're getting at in terms of which ones you suggest putting on the composer's page. I don't have a problem with it but I'd suggest that when used on any opera or composer page, they be collapsed by default, regardless of the presence of another template. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to get feedback from Melodia (talk · contribs) who has removed {{Carmen}} from Georges Bizet, {{The Magic Flute}} from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and {{The Tales of Hoffmann}} from Jacques Offenbach and Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs) who removed {{Madama Butterfly}} from Giacomo Puccini.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the template {{Madama Butterfly}} from Giacomo Puccini's article because I don't see how this template (please look at it) can contribute any meaningful information to Puccini's biography. On the contrary, it will contribute to navbox clutter, especially if such work templates are added in large numbers to biographies. I don't think such clutter is more acceptable because it appears at the bottom of articles. The collection at Wilde and Dostoyevsky does nothing to convince me otherwise. In short, I don't believe in the goal of A navbox on every page; instead, I'm wary of template creep.

Returning to some earlier arguments: How are these templates "multimedia" templates? An author's most notable works are invariably mentioned in the narration; less notable works are mentioned either in a section "List of works" or in a separate page mentioned in the biography. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am with Michael Bednarek on this. He poses the essential question: what does this template add to Puccini's biography? Answer - nothing. And a template for each of his operas (even for only the most popular ones) on his biography page would be simply clutter, encouraging the first-time reader to get lost, rather than to understand the topic of the article. The aim of Wikipeida is after all to be an on-line encyclopedia, not a version of Pinterest.--Smerus (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In general I like these boxes at the bottom of pages, when collapsed, but I'm in agreement with the general argument that boxes relating to individual works belong on those pages, and not on the author/composer's page. (In the opposite direction, I can imagine that a box relating to a composer being suitable for the page for one of their creations) almost-instinct 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A thin horizontal bar at the very foot of an article page (not even at the end of the article itself) hardly qualifies as "clutter", even if there were 5 or 6 of them. They do not interfere in any way with the article's image layout or the flow of the prose and sections. I also find it hard to see how they can "distract" the reader from reading the article. You only come to them when you have gone through the whole article right to the bottom of the page. And let's suppose the reader gets to the end of the article page and wants to follow up something they've read there. It's a lot easier to click on the navbox than to go back through the article to find the wikilink again. The only issue that might arise is if the article is very long and heavily illustrated. Having more than a few navboxes at the end might conceivably affect page loading time, but that's about it. I really cannot understand the opposition to something so innocuous and unobtrusive that could be of benefit to some readers and/or pique their interest in related subjects. Voceditenore (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As the template creator, I am obviously a supporter of their inclusion. There is data that provides the answer to whether people on the biography pages click through to derivative work from the templates. I don't have access to that data. However, anyone who does, actually can say whether multimedia templates are useful. I don't actually know, but I find them useful. I believe people are interested in adaptations of an author's work. That is my guess. As for Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs)'s question "How are these templates 'multimedia' templates?", either he or I misunderstands the term. The template he removed contains a variety of media types (plays, music, literature, film, musicals and operas). Maybe I am not understanding MB's point, but that seems to fall squarely in the multimedia class.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I would leave the templates with the pieces, as the info seems too distant from the biography of the opera composer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: I understand the term "multimedia" as "content that uses a combination of different content formats", not as a list of "a variety of media types". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the proper word for the various types of ways a work could be adapted (book, play, opera, musical, comic, song, etc.). I think the one that I have created with the most various ways is {{Cinderella}}, although for opera-sourced ones, my best example is {{Carmen}} with film, musical, ballet, album and song adaptations and novella source. What is the name for the variety of types of adapted works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I confess that my source for the term is the United States Postal Service. They use to have a term called book rate for a postal charge scale relating to sending books. Then they expanded the term to include CDs and DVDs and such and called it media mail rate. They use the term media for books, CDs and DVDs. Thus, I use the term for books, plays, movies, video games, etc. I don't know what the proper term is but would love to be corrected so I don't advertise my idiocy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for navigation

We seem to be getting away from the point as to whether these templates are appropriate for the biography articles. No one seems yet to have given an positive rationale for this. I can see that they are appropriate for the works themselves and the other topics mentioned in the template - many of which have little or nothing to do with the biography. As TonyTheTiger points out, the template which Michael Bednarek removed 'contains a variety of media types (plays, music, literature, film, musicals and operas)' - none of which illuminate the life of Puccini. Some of them might- conceivably - relate to critical or cultural reception of Puccini, but there is no mention of any of this in the article itself. And indeed the template is not, as it is headed, about 'Giacomo Puccini's Madama Butterfly' - it is about the subject of 'Madam Butterfly' in general, and (I wilingly concede) very interesting in that context. Maybe the issue here is in fact the titles of TonyTheTiger's templates - the contents of the templates themselves do not actually correspond to their titles.--Smerus (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the titles that are potentially misleading. I haven't got time to check the growing number of these horizontal navboxes for individual operas. But from what I've seen so far, so many of them have been problematic, that every single one needs to be checked. Today's Template:Don Giovanni was a mess. It listed Réminiscences de Don Juan as an opera, when it is nothing of the kind. And what does that field "Operas" mean? Operas based on Mozart's opera? Operas using the same libretto? Operas using the same libretto source? Operas vaguely similar in some aspect of the plot? Ditto for the field "Literature". What does that mean? I removed Mary and the Giant which has only the vaguest of similarities in plot, and quotes one reviewer who said he thought he saw similarities. Also what is that template doing in Category:Film templates? Can we at least have all these navboxes for individual operas in one consistent and bespoke category so we can find them and gradually check them all for accuracy, consistency, and usability? Until that is done, I am now totally against adding these as footers to any opera composer articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not an opera virtuoso, scholar or student. Please forgive my good faith effort to classify Réminiscences de Don Juan as an opera. Yes today I deployed {{Don Juan}} and {{Don Giovanni}}. In Mary and the Giant, the author claims it is a retelling of Don Giovanni. I think it should be restored to the template for the good of the reader for this reason. I could be wrong. It could be as different as West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet but note that the former is on the template for the latter. With this in mind and given the author's intent, I think it is consistent with WP general policy for me to restore this to the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I don't question your good faith at all, and as I said these templates are potentially useful in theory. But the fact remains that they are problematic and all of them need to be checked and cross-checked for consistency of the field names used, care that the field names are not misleading, and that what you're adding to any field is accurate. It's important to read an article all the way through, and if necessary follow up the other links in it before adding it to a particular field or even adding it all, as in the case of Réminiscences de Don Juan. This is especially important if you're creating templates in a subject area where you don't have particular expertise. As far as I know, we're not in a race here or under some kind of deadline, so why not take the time to do them slowly and properly? Re the novel, Mary and the Giant, the plot never even approaches the similarity between West Side Story and Shakespeare's R & J and the evidence for what those similarities are is vague and flimsy. Add it back if you think it's important, but what do you mean by the "Literature" field you had added it to. What does literature mean in that context? It's not at all clear to me, and I'm speaking as a reader in this case. Any novel, poem, play, etc. that shows even the vaguest similarity to the plot of Don Giovanni? Any literature which contains an allusion to the opera or its title? Any literature which might have been the source for the libretto? Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point I have made about 200-300 of what I call multimedia templates (See User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created). Loose adaptations are always a judgement call. There are often cases where something is a parody or adaptation of 4 or 5 different things. I don't include those on a template. I don't include things that are only linked by title in most cases, although {{Casanova}} is a bit of an exception. In some cases the article is so thin, the title is almost all that I have to go by (E.g, Don Juan in Hell (film) and Don Giovanni in Sicilia). Again this is a judgment call. Oddly, the most consistently difficult decisions seem to be episodes of The Simpsons because its seems a vast proportion of the shows are parodying famous literature. However, the shows often parody three or four different works in the same show. I have not actually been that consistent/careful with my field names. E.g., sometimes operas, musicals, ballets, and/or plays might all get lumped under stage and in other cases each has enough works for its own separate field.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Improving the templates

Tony, to be genuinely useful to the reader these templates need to be a lot more consistently and transparently organized. I'll take Carmen as a example. I'm going to paste it below in its expanded state for ease of seeing what my commentary is referring to:

The fields are not in any kind of logical order and confuse the reader as to what articles are strictly about aspects of the actual opera and which are adaptations in some way. The first field should be "Music", but should only contain articles like the Discography, individual recordings of the opera as Bizet wrote it, and the individual arias. The second should be "Source". The third should be "Adaptations", subdivided alphabetically by "Film", "Instrumental", and "Stage". In this respect Carmen Suites and Carmen Brasilia belong under "Instrumental" adaptations, not under "Music". The last field should be "Related" with Carmen Fantasie moved out of there to "Instrumental" adaptations. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Another example:

Why do you have the discography and the aria under two different headings when in Carmen, they are both under "Music". And again, fields which are the most relevant to the actual opera should come first, not the film adaptations. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I had a look at {{Madama Butterfly}} again. It's got the same problems of rather illogical order of fields as the other two, but also contained some errors which are so egregious that I've gone ahead and corrected them [2], [3], [4]. Really, we can't mislead readers like that. Voceditenore (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Use Navbox in Infobox

Orlando furioso
Antonio Vivaldi
More about the composer

Now that we have great composer navboxes, I suggest we make them more visible. In Orlando furioso (Vivaldi), I tried to replace the collapsed list of Vivaldis operas by a link to the navbox which supplies much more, - please discuss --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In Motezuma I tried adding a bit about the work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In order to see how it would work and discuss, look at Orlando furioso --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I have reverted the box on Orlando furioso (Vivaldi) and pasting it here, so people can see what it looked like). First, to the reader who knows little or nothing about the subject, it could be read as the person in the image being someone named Orlando Furioso. Secondly, the self-referencing to direct the reader to another navbox at the bottom of the page "More about the composer" is wildly inappropriate in my view. The hyperlink on Antonio Vivaldi in the first sentence of the lede takes the reader to much more "More about the composer", not simply to a list of articles about his work with no explanation whatsoever about him, i.e. the navbox. If the footer navboxes are useful, people will use them. You don't use the head of the article to send the reader to the bottom of it. There's no need to add that to the image of the composer. There is a reason why those composer navboxes are used in this way in articles about their operas. It is to provide the list of their operas in chronological order which helps set the current one in context and provides quick links at the top of the page, and that was the previous consensus. Also, I do not agree that the composer navboxes are "great". They are OK, but somewhat inconsistent between themselves, and in the past, I have found several of the ones by TT, mostly on the individual operas to be actually wrong or misleading in places.

As for Motezuma (which I also reverted), what you are doing there is basically making a big change that affects all opera articles—unilaterally adding an opera infobox which has a completely different function (although you used infobox person for Orlando Furioso). I'm not necessarily against that, provided there is a consensus here to to start changing all the opera articles to something like this, but it's a big change, which affects all the articles about operas, and in the transition stage, there will be big inconsistencies across our articles. If you want to do that, and I know you are keen to add infoboxes in general to virtually every kind of article, then it needs to be discussed in a separate section here. See below. Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing a test (see below also), you have to imagine the link to the navbox because it's not on this page, or look at the previous version where you can try it. I think it might be a way to have less info at the top, but still point out that it's there, but am not passionate about it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

ps: we have now a lot of comment on infoboxes in the navbox-section, also the other way - if split, can we really split? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes we can split it and we should split it into something more focused and explicit. What you were proposing in this section was not simply the addition of something to an existing infobox. You are proposing a complete change of a long-standing practice, i.e. the invention of a new infobox and replacing the traditional navbox with the composer's image with this new box on every article that has one of TT's horizontal multi-article footer templates. The general principle needs to be discussed in the section below and simultaneously at Template talk:Infobox opera what sorts of fields would be appropriate on a potential Opera infobox with the latter discussion used to inform the general discussion. It should not be done via changing two articles unilaterally and presenting it as a fait accompli. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment below moved from Opera infoboxes section

I don't know what you will resolve with this issue, but I have a list of composers for whom I intend to create footer templates. I have already created {{Franz Lehár}}, {{Jacques Offenbach}}, {{Georges Bizet}}, {{Giacomo Puccini}}, {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{George Frideric Handel}}, {{Antonio Vivaldi}}, {{Gioachino Rossini}} They include most of the major composers who don't already have them: Ruggero Leoncavallo, Gaetano Donizetti, Richard Strauss, Johann Strauss II, Benjamin Britten, Engelbert Humperdinck, Charles Gounod, Leoš Janácek, Pietro Mascagni, Vincenzo Bellini, Franz Schubert, Philip Glass, Maurice Ravel, Antonio Salieri, Henry Purcell, Gaetano Donizetti, Claudio Monteverdi, Modest Mussorgsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, André Previn, Anna Netrebko, Paul Dickey, Charles Goddard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment below moved from Opera infoboxes section

Tony, what you do with these templates is basically irrelevant to any decisions we make about opera-infoboxes. (More on this in the section below Opera infoboxes. Does this sound like a plan?). However, you will have to expect that where editors find them unhelpful or misleading in particular articles about operas or their composers, they will be removed. I also seriously question why you are planning to plow full-steam ahead with creating yet more of these, when the current ones are currently so inconsistent and in some cases quite error filled and misleading. What is the rush? Why not work on the current ones you've made to address the issues that have been pointed out to you? Whatever you do, will you please place all of them in a single category, so they can be easily accessed. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment below moved from Opera infoboxes section

It is not a rush. I have done almost every other source subject. Operas are mostly all I have left (except maybe ballets). They are not any less likely to have errors should I wait. I am not taking any opera courses right now. I am still going to open articles like Réminiscences de Don Juan and think they are about operas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment below moved from Opera infoboxes section

I like the navboxes on the composers. Look at {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} - a lot at one glance. I would see no way to arrange the same in an infobox (that's why I still a connection would be worth thinking about, but there's time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bach navbox is useful—for navigation and to give an idea what Wikipedia articles are available in a compact space, albeit with very small lettering. As for a "connection", a connection from where? Certainly not an infobox on the Bach biography. Even if it were to acquire one, List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach has 500 times the information as that navigation template. That's what should be linked to in the infobox. Once again, it does a terrible disservice to the reader to immediately send them from the top of the page to the bottom to see a bunch of wiki links with very scant actual information, apart from the dates of a few of his works, infinitely less information than that List. Voceditenore (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the list of Bach's compositions has much more information, and I would certainly want to link to it, but the navbox provides a more concentrated idea of a timeline of his works, - why not have that also, for example as {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} instead of a link to the bottom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, are you now simply arguing for keeping these navboxes on the article pages? If so, I'm fine with that, although some editors consider them "clutter", I don't, provided they're collapsed, and I suggest you slug it out on the article talk pages. If you are still arguing that the navbox should also be linked from the infobox, well, no. It's absurd, and a great disservice to the reader. If you want to provide a condensed timeline of Bach's works in an infobox, then do so properly (in a collapsed cell, obviously), provided you can get people to agree to it, and indeed can get people to agree to an infobox there in the first place.

Ditto for infoboxes in any other articles about composers or individual works, although providing a timeline of the composer's work is even more inappropriate in an infobox about only one of his works. Readers are not morons. If they want to know properly referenced details about the composer himself, they can simply click on his name in the infobox. However, if you think they would also benefit from quick access to a complete list of the composer's works with concise but real details, properly referenced, then provide the link to that page in the infobox. If they're interested, they'll click on it.

If readers want to know every article on Wikipedia remotely related to a composer or a work, they will look at the navbox at the bottom of the page. These footer navboxes are very common on Wikipedia pages. Readers are not morons. They will find them, whether they read English or not. If the navbox is useful to them, they'll click on the links in it. You don't need an infobox (or anything else on the page) to say "Hey, check out the navbox at the bottom." Sending the reader, under the false promise of "more details" or "more information", from the infobox straight to yet another box on the same page with no real information apart from a few dates and labels, does not help them understand the subject of the article, or even the key facts about that subject. Voceditenore (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Our now discussing Bach on the Opera Project page is just one example of many of the sideways / irrelevant moves that we've seen recently in our musings. Does the principle of Undue Weight apply to talk pages as well as articles themselves? almost-instinct 12:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it might do, and it is rather wearying. ;-) But although Gerda used Bach as an example, the same thing applies to Wagner, Handel, Vivaldi, etc., which (alas!) are relevant here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for Bach, it's his birthday ;) - substitute Wagner, for this project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep further comments about these navboxes in this section only. They are off-topic in the discussion about Opera Infoboxes. They simply muddy the waters in an already lengthy and complicated topic. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a comment about this subject on the Jacques Offenbach talk page several weeks ago but only one person replied. I agree with those who don’t see any point in these horizontal templates. As for info boxes, as someone says below, these will merely recap the first sentence or two of the article. A lot of this seems part of the obsession with trying to force everything into categories, pigeon-holes or reduce works of art to keywords. I believe the world is not like that. (Apologies, I realise this discussion has moved on.) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera infoboxes

Motezuma
Opera in three acts by Antonio Vivaldi
Antonio Vivaldi
Year	1733 (1733)
Period	Baroque
Text	Girolamo Giusti
Premiere
Date	14 November 1733 (1733-11-14): Teatro Sant'Angelo, Venice

I am re-opening this subject, previously discussed here (2009) and most recently here (2011), as to whether we should begin changing over opera articles to have an infobox about the opera at the top of the page, and navboxes for the composer's works at the bottom of the page. The one at the right is an example. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing, it is no more than that, with the wording more a placeholder than anything else. I would like to point out at the top of an article that a lot more is available at the bottom, - how can we do that best - or do people know? I could imagine to add some vital information in an infobox, therefore I combined the ideas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to "tell" the reader something like that and to "advertise" what else is on the page. The reader will scroll to the bottom if they are interested. That really is clutter, and it's both distracting and misleading. As I said before, the hyperlink to the composer in the lede or in the currently used composer navbox at the top takes you to the article which tells the reader more about Vivaldi. The box tells them nothing about Vivaldi except which articles Wikipedia has on some of his compositions. It has some potentially useful information about what is in Wikipedia about him, but in no way would I describe it as "vital information". List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi and List of operas by Vivaldi has vital information, properly documented—not that footer navbox. And for the operas, which would be relegated to the footer, they are far less easy to read (much smaller print), and see in chronological order than the current navbox devoted solely to his operas which is currently on the top of the page. Even if we were to switch to infoboxes about each individual opera, I would be very against adding the anchor link you propose. Voceditenore (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"If they are interested", readers will scroll, - I wonder how many only see the top, and wish I could interest some of those in more. I meant the word "vital" only for the infobox, not the navbox, did I say that wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not remotely "vital information" for any proposed opera infobox. The vital information would be links to List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi and List of operas by Vivaldi. If the proposed opera infobox links to the proper complete lists of his works, they will see them right away. The footer navbox is just that, yet another navigation aid for someone who potentially wants one but of no educational value. It has no vital information about either Vivaldi or the works listed in it. Therefore, the link actually misleads the reader. Incidentally, the guidelines on infoboxes are to not use them to navigate to sections of the page itself. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the box you are currently proposing, Gerda, "Text" is wrong for that field, it should be "Libretto". But that and the anchor link to the the footer navbox are issues to be left for when there is a consensus, if any, to switch over to these kinds of boxes. So I suggest we keep to that topic first. It's a big change and involves a lot of work for the editors here, and that's what needs discussion first, not what to put in it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We had a misunderstanding. I had the idea (see above) that if we have a broad list about a composer in a navbox, we don't have to repeat his operas on top, and would win room for some information about that particular opera. But if we don't do that - and I see good reasons not to do it, - forget that. I was talking only about composers for whom we have a navbox, such as Handel, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

My attitude in this matter is perfectly expressed by quoting Voceditenore from the above-linked 2011 discussion: "I don't think it would be practical to start changing the navboxes to horizontal and ditto developing an opera infobox. There are just too many current navboxes that would have to be changed, not to mention the time-sink involved in developing and agreeing on an opera infobox, for not much gain in terms of actually improving articles themselves." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I understood what you were on about, Gerda, but you were simultaneously doing that by adding a whole new type of infobox at the top of articles, and one which incidentally removed the {{italic title}} format. For now, I do not think the current box is necessarily redundant. However, I actually think it might be a good idea to switch over to a well-designed opera infobox for some or possibly all articles, and it would be a useful and timely discussion to have. But we need to discuss the general principal first, because it's quite a big change. I don't think it's a good idea or helpful to just randomly add them to two articles and then have a diffuse conversation about what's in the ones you added. I've contacted all the OP members who have participated at least once on this talk page in the last year and invited them to the discussion. We need lots of views, not least because changing over also means potentially quite a lot of extra work. But once again, the discussion in this section should be about the general principle first, and not about how to advertise the footer navboxes to the readers. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why does it need both a date and a "period"? Presumably our definitions of periods are going to be following the usual 1600-1750-1830-1900 rubbish, as if Vivaldi's opera had more to do with Orfeo than with Mozart opera seria. I suggest that if people wants us to discuss the introduction of opera infoboxes they go away and design a good one, thinking carefully about what fields are suitable (interesting and factual fields) and they present it. This constant swamping of this page with this topic is becoming a HUGE distraction almost-instinct 09:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) How would you suggest some people "go away"? - Classical music is discussing "orchestra", collecting needed fields first, now a sample is built and is under discussion. Perhaps wait for a model there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment below, Gerda, re Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Opera infobox drafts. First of all, this is not WikiProject Classical music and what they do there and how they discuss it is up to them. Secondly, the proposal there is to change an existing infobox, already in many articles. You are proposing a very big change and that we go ahead and develop an infobox which has never been in any opera articles. I would personally prefer a more methodical and gradual approach via discussing the general principle first. Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not necessarily against a navbox if it is kept simple. A few points at this stage, based on the example given - please take a look at the template specifications in edit, as some of the points I mention below are not visible in the example as it shows:

• Why premiere conductor, place, performers, etc? These are typically better laid out in the 'roles' box in the article. You open endless pointless debate about e.g. which performers to include.
• Why portrait of composer? Isn't it better to show a scene from the opera, or a page from its score or whatever, if available? The article is after all about the opera. If nothing form the opera avaialble, then there should be no pic.
• 'Period' and 'Style' - again, potential prompts for endless pointless squabbling; if the article is any good it will contextualise this issue appropriately. Forget it for a navbox.
• Scoring, solo, choir, instruments - why? Such detailed info belongs to the article.
• Published - does this mean date? or publisher? But in any case, so what? Irrelevant for a navbox; forget it.
• 'Text' should of course be 'libretto' as per Voceditenore.

An infobox on these lines would I think be non-intrusive, broadly non-controversial and would meet WP:KISS.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I took the existing infobox musical composition as it is, as I am better with examples than theory, subject to discussion. The fields don't have to be filled everytime. I used it for an article mentioning the premiere only as a fact, without artists, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of first paragraphs, not infoboxes (not in this topic area anyway). As I've repeatedly stated, prose is so much more flexible and accurate than a standardised, Procrustean "bucket full o'factoids" in the right-hand corner. Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument - in fact, any argument at all - why people are incapable of reading the opening sentences of an article. Also, infoboxes on short or stub articles would be ridiculous, merely repeating the content of the article in quadrilateral form.--Folantin (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Some people are incapable of reading English prose, but able to understand keywords. I agree that having for example a premiere date marked as such in the text by an invisible keyword, and showing its day/month/year in numbers hidden, but words to be seen, would be even better, but we are not there yet --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Some people are incapable of reading English prose". Oh really? Isn't there a Simple English Wikipedia for such hypothetical people anyway? --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hee Hee. I have a secret life [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is, but doesn't help people who want to take the key facts to one of the many Wikipedia languages around the globe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

What? What does this even mean? If people can't read English, then there are Wikipedias in dozens and dozens of other languages.--Folantin (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How many languages have Vivaldi's Motezuma or Wagner's Tannhäuser? How many could more easily assemble a decent stub in their language and an interwiki-link if we supplied basic data in an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. It's written in English prose. It's for users who speak English. I've engaged in plenty of cross-Wiki collaborations with foreign-language editors, but it's been through the medium of speaking to each other and making sure information was accurate and sourced, not through infoboxes. Don't even get me started on the problems of machine translation...Bottom line is, if you can't speak English, you can't use English Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Opera infobox drafts for editors who wish to monkey around with different styles and discuss the parameters a potential opera infobox should have. I tend to agree with Almost-instinct, that the minutiae of what to go in it should be worked out separately and then proposed here once (if) there is a general agreement amongst the editors that having an opera infobox in some or all articles is worthwhile idea. As per Michael and Smerus, I think working on that separate page would be a real eye-opener as to just how much of a time-sink working out an acceptable one can be for editors who want it to meet WP:KISS and those who want a second vertical article running down the side of the page. So please, no more pasting of different versions of a potential box on this page, and no more random experiments in article space. I personally find the latter very disruptive. Simply discuss here whether in principle it's worth pursuing and ultimately switching over some articles to this type of infobox. Then, we can discuss the one that's on offer. Voceditenore (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Template talk:Infobox opera. I've started a draft at {{Infobox opera}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, folks, let's step back for a minute; this thing shows signs of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Despite more than one admonition, we're seeing a lot of "what should be in the box/why is that in the box/shouldn't that part of the box be phrased differently?" cart before much of any "do we even want to do this?" horse. For my part, I'm not so sure. On the one hand, there's no doubt that boxes add visual interest to the articles in which they appear. On the other, as has been noted, developing them and adding them systematically to all the opera articles in Wikipedia promises to be a task like tidying up the Augean stables. So:

• Aside from some modest cosmetic improvements, what's the universe of things we think adding boxes could do to improve articles?
• Within that universe, what do we want them to do?
• Within that universe, what is practical for them to do?
• And is that benefit worth the investment of time and effort and the discord that inevitably will ensue?

Please--if we don't have clear objectives and expectations in mind, this initiative promises to degenerate into another of those periodic pointless infobox brouhahas that have sapped so much time and energy to so little point over the past several years. Drhoehl (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Purpose, style, approach, considerations and much more are available here, if they are really not known. - "Adding them to all opera articles" is not the question I see, but that a standard should be thoughtful even if added to only a few. (It's easy for me to say so, because I didn't suffer the "past several years". I am new to the topic, with a history of fighting infoboxes.) Here's my classic example what granular data means, mentioned in the purpose section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fankly, I have little patience with trying to follow these long discussions. I'd rather be working on articles - and, heaven knows, there's plenty of work to do there!

Even if we determine that there are good reasons for adding these boxes, is the expenditure of energy not better spent on getting the articles themselves improved? Can't say I'm a fan of adding them. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension; no-one is going to make you, or any other disinterested editor, add any template, anywhere. You will remain free to edit as you do now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved the latest comments from Tony, myself and Gerda out of this section. They are now in the Use Navbox where they belong. Please keep that discussion there. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In Re All of the Above

I am inspired by the very sane comments of Dr. Hoehl to make the following points:

1) This is an Opera Project. I am not interested in the insane proposals to weld all the world's knowledge into a virtual nugget, and if I were, there are other platforms in which I could discuss it. In fact all that can be said on this futile topic was brilliantly dealt with 150 years ago by George Eliot in her portrait of Dr. Casaubon in Middlemarch - go read it if you haven't. I therefore suggest that the next person who mentions 'granularity' (yes, I mean you, Gerda), or who attempts to bully editors by alleging huge techno revolutions going on somewhere out there, is suspended from this project for a period ranging from one femasecond to numerous millenia. This may be WP:OR, but I suggest that 95%+ of the regular editors in this project are interested in opera and wish to write about opera. And don't give a f**k about metadata. As it has been made abundantly clear that the use of infoboxes is neither mandatory nor forbidden, regardless of trending geekery in the world of WP, that I think gives this project grounds for setting this aspect aside permanently.

2) Looking at the Orlando Furiosi, (where the question in hand was, aazingly, resolved as far as it went), I note that these operas (and many others) now have the same information twice, the picture template at the top and the flat template at the bottom. One of these, at least, is redundant and therefore clutter. Can we develop a policy as to which should stay? If the flat template stays (in Vivaldi and elsewhere), I see no intrinsic objection to a modest infobox at top right hand corner, which would be no more intrusive that the existing template. Any attempt to make such a box rival the article with more than very basic information however would be ridiculous. I have made my suggestions as to what such an infobox might contain in the appropriate place and am entirely content (of course!) in any case, to go with the wishes of the project as a whole.

3) As regards the efforts of Tony the Tiger, these really seem to me to be on the level of graffiti. They are are, as I have indicated above, mistitled. There can be no rational justification for a template to contain (for example) both a discography of Puccini's 'Madame Butterfly' and a Broadway show on a similar storyline. You could indeed have a template for the 'Madame Butterfly' storyline and its various incarnations, but it wouldn't belong in an article on Puccini, and wouldn't include the opera discography. And so on for all the others. If TtT has an obsession with disseminating his inspirations in this way, then unfortunately it falls to us to clean up after him, so far as it affects this project, unless we seek more extreme sanctions.

Пока - --Smerus (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I love opera and like to share it with the world, KISS. Your "2)" expressed my thoughts better than I could express them, thank you!

ps: I will not have to repeat "granular" because I trust you (y'all) got it the first time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Smerus, I agree with everything you've said, with an extra set of kudos for your point 1. :-) See below for a suggestion about how we might go forward. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera infoboxes. Does this sound like a plan?

I have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed about the time-sink this represents. It has so far taken up all the time I wanted to spend working on the Women's History Month articles, and I'd be fibbing if I said I didn't resent it somewhat. But it has been landed on our plate whether we like it or not, and I'd like this project to be able to return as quickly as possible to what we do best, providing a friendly, relatively stress-free place where we can support each other in writing and improving articles.

My reading of the views so far is that editors here are not completely against opera infoboxes. Some see positive value (in varying degrees). The rest don't see any particular value in them, but are open to them. Virtually all of us have several important provisos:

• The fields should be strictly limited to key facts. These should not become vertical articles, filled with more and more detail.
• Our first duty is to the readers of the English Wikipedia. Our articles and their contents should not be skewed to accommodate people who can't read English (or can't read at all) to the detriment of those who can.
• Templates and Infoboxes Infoboxes and other templates, are not there to serve each other. Templates and infoboxes They should serve the article, its readers, and its editors.

I am willing to help develop the new infobox so that it keeps to key facts with a minimum potential for introducing error and detail-creep, and to draft guidelines for its use. I suggest that:

• Anyone who would like to have input on designing the new box participate at Template talk:Infobox opera.
• The various horizontal footer templates that TT is adding will have some slight overlap for a while (or even permanently) with the current operas-by-composer navboxes at heads of opera articles, but we sort that out separately. They arguably serve two different purposes and the horizontal footers are currently inconsistent and prone to errors and misleading information. Thus, they should not drive the discussion about the current operas-by-composer navboxes, or a future opera infobox. Nor should they have any influence on either their contents or how they should be deployed.
• We wait until we have a reasonable and stable infobox to offer here and make the final decision then as to whether and when it should be used.
• Until then, editors should refrain from adding random versions of these infoboxes to any article (or encouraging others to do so on your behalf) and then loading up this page with yet more distracting discussion about what you've done. Ditto pushing for the development of yet more templated graffiti.

Does this sound like a plan? Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no rush, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, you could have fooled me. ;). Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I've been away and have a backlog of non-WP things to do. I've now read all of the above and glanced at the various infobox proposals (it's taken me most of the morning). I can't say that I'm particularly enthusiastic about any of this but we seem to have rather boxed(!) ourselves into a corner. Nevertheless, I'll try and make some helpful comments after another reading some time later today. --GuillaumeTell 11:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your third bullet point, infoboxes are templates. Regarding your "timesink" comment, participation in no Wikipedia activity or discussion is mandatory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I realize that infoboxes are also templates. I was referring to infoboxes and other templates such as navboxes. I've made that clearer now. As for the second part of your comment, what members think would be a time-sink for this project as a collective to undertake or discuss, is a perfectly valid position, and I fully support their right to express that. It doesn't mean that some of us (like me) won't bite the bullet and put in the time anyway. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support Vocedittenore's suggestions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Orlandi furiosi

Just to vary the topics....I notice from the Vivaldi template mentioned by Gerda that of Vivaldi's two operas on Orlando furioso, one article is entitled Orlando furioso (Vivaldi), and the other Orlando furioso (RV 819). Shouldn't the former be moved to Orlando furioso (RV 728)?--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And then of course Orlando furioso (Vivaldi) should become a disambig--Smerus (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I submit that the current names are fully supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Michael on this. As it is, "(RV 819)" isn't an optimal form of disambiguating between the two current Orlandi. It's very opaque to the average reader. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well is there a better way of labelling RV 819 then? - e.g. Orlando Furioso (Vivaldi - 1714 version) - --Smerus (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To someone who had no idea there were two versions, this strikes me as a good way of expressing it almost-instinct 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a precedent: Anacréon (Rameau, 1754) and Anacréon (Rameau, 1757) (two different operas by the same composer with the same title). --Folantin (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, something similar for the current Orlando furioso (RV 819) would be a good solution. Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Orlando furioso (Vivaldi, 1714)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Smerus (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, if only all discussions here were that easy. :) Thanks, Smerus. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the two templates but don't know how to pipe so that people know that it is not The Orlando but the early fragment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have sorted this.--Smerus (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Buttons

It just occurred to me that if we had some of these on Wikipedia we could save a great deal of space and time, certainly in this project.--Smerus (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be interesting to see a discussion page like that. :-) WP does have some of these or similar, see:

Facepalm

Like

On another note of levity, this has to be one of the weirdest WP categories yet. Voceditenore, AKA (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

could apply to a number or editors......--Smerus (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Like - Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about uniting separated composer templates

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Templates regarding uniting composer templates that are separated by type of composition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: copyvio using You Tube links

I've been meaning to ask: if an opera company has its own You Tube channel (e.g. La fenice) is it ok to put links to videos now on YT?? Or does one have to get permission from the company? The Santa Fe Opera also seems to have its own channel and have asked them for permission re: this summer's premiere of Oscar, the article for which I created the other day. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Official YouTube channels for opera companies and record companies are fine, and you don't need to ask permission. Videos uploaded by private individuals are almost invariably copyright violations and shouldn't be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Offenbach template

Referred here from WP Classical music, as per comment of DavidRF (talk). The template referred to is {{Jacques Offenbach}}. --Smerus (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(Begin comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music)

Why please is a there an overall header 'operettas', then divided in to opera bouffe, opera bouffon, etc., etc.? 'Operetta' as applied to Offenbach in English is a convenience term, not one used by the composer himself. The template (more or less accurately) lists these works by the composer's own terminology, so the overall header for these terms of 'operetta' is both superfluous and misleading. --Smerus (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Convenience term: so is "cantata" for Bach's cantatas, he termed only very few that way. I think I will stll use "cantata" for being understood, and don't expect the readers of Offenbach to be familiar enough with his terminology in French, - why not conveniently help them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well in fact you don't help them, Gerda, because not all of these Offenbach works are generally claissified as operettas - whereas all of Bach's works that you refer to are generally classified as cantatas, whether JSB actually called them such or not. The template is highly misleading as it suggests that there is consensus in calling all these Offenbach works 'operettas' - such concensus does not exist. Let me gently remind you that Wikipedia is here to report facts, not to 'create' them, however saintly the intention.--Smerus (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about Offenbach, was talking more generally, perhaps there should be a broader term for his works. - We know that there seems to be "consensus" to call some of Wagner's stage works operas although he argued against it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, this is scarcely helpful. Maybe there should, in an ideal world, be a broader term for his works, maybe not. We are here in Wikipedia to report, not to speculate. TtT has taken it upon himslef to classify virtually all of Offenbach's output as 'operetta'. If neither he, nor you - nor anyone else - can produce an appropriate citation to support 'operetta' as applied to virtually the whole of Offenbach's works, then the assertion that they are all 'operettas' should be deleted. See WP:CITE. It's as simple as that. --Smerus (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would greatly appreaciate any effort to overhaul the template I created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all the subgenres are highlighted either. Differences between these types of genres are often subtle and open to interpretation (unless the composer strictly labeled them himself). That said, I'd leave the issue of Offenbach up to Opera wikiproject as the template is almost completely filled with stage works. At first glance it looks like it almost fully overlaps with their pre-existing infobox Template:Offenbach operas... but again, I'd leave it up to the other project.DavidRF (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the overlap, WP:OPERA is having serious discussions (above) about overhauling the infobox and standardizing navbox content in footer style templates, which is the more standard navbox style on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As the originator of most of the Offenbach material, I think I should explain some of the choices that were made in the past. First of all the composition list was/is called List of operettas by Offenbach. We were following most of the English language sources in using 'operetta' as an umbrella term. (Opérette couldn't be used because the meaning is much more specific in French).

The list gives the actual published genre designation used by the composer. These are explained to some extent in the List of opera genres (which I abandoned a couple of years ago after problems documented on the talk page).

Offenbach's genres are meaningful (though ignored by almost all the English language writers), but it's important to understand that they were determined as much by the location of the performance as the form of the work. Finally, in the past we have used the description 'Stage works' when opera or operetta or whatever didn't seem appropriate. I hope this helps. Kleinzach 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(End comments copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music)

• Without getting into the nitty-gritty of this template and its vagaries, I'll point out that while there is some overlap with the current head of article navbox that we use, i.e. {{Offenbach operas}}, I would suggest leaving it in place in addition to the monster footer for now. For one thing, the "old" navbox presents the operas simply and chronologically, rather than making the reader plow through all the various sub-genres, which actually obscure the chronology of his works. It also automatically adds the composer's image and {{italic title}} to the article. Any removal would entail manually re-adding the composer's image (and/or changing the image layout) and re-adding the italic title template, and there are a heck of a lot of articles on Offenbach's operas. We may eventually decide to go that route provided someone is willing to put in the donkey work making all those changes to each of the 49 articles involved, for very little return. I'm not. Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This was raised on 13 February on the Offenbach page. In addition to the problems identified above, and that these supposed sub-genres contain very varied works in length and style, the designations are not always consistent between versions of the same piece (eg Pont des soupirs). You would have to be consistent to call Les Contes d’Hoffmann ‘opéra fantastique’. If the intention was to really help the reader interested in exploring a composer'sworks rather than constantly pigeon-hole everything, this horizontal box could contain more useful links: key works (Deux aveugles, Orphée, Belle Hélène, Vie parisienne, Grande-Duchesse, Hoffmann, plus a link to the List of operettas by Offenbach page), then a row with main librettists, Other works, Important theatres associated with him, Important performers, links to different genres, plus other background (Second French Empire or whatever.) But this would need full discussion on each composer page to decide whether and what to have. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been bold with the template. Still not beautiful, but I think more accurate.--Smerus (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good generally, but I don't think that the rubbishy Gaîté parisienne belongs there. --GuillaumeTell 17:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Carmen featured article picture

IMVHO there's far too much wall, and not enough Carmen in the picture that goes with the Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/April_6,_2013 article. Scarabocchio (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Great to hear you again! - Please say so on the talk of that page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's done. Now I have to find my copy of Victor Borge's Favourite Intervals to see how Bizet described Carmen .. something like "If they want rubbish, I shall give them rubbish"? Scarabocchio (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wagner's Die Feen libretto

Just added english line-by-line libretto to Wagner's The Fairies. So far there is no English libretto in Web (except one on my web site). Dear Voceditenore and Guillaume could you please add a link to German-English line-by-line libretto http://www.murashev.com/opera/Die_Feen_libretto_German_English to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Feen --Murashev (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done, many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you a lot, Smerus! But, please, note that DM's opera site's URL isn't murashev.com as you wrote, but murashev.com/opera --Murashev (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Redone! By the way, I visited Ukhta about 20 years ago. --Smerus (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Carmen 6 April

Carmen
Opera by George Bizet
Célestine Galli-Marié, the protagonist of the premiere in 1875
Librettist	Henri Meilhac Ludovic Halévy
Language	French
Premiere	3 March 1875 (1875-03-03) Opéra-Comique, Paris

Carmen will be featured article, - what do think of applying the {{infobox opera}} as a test, for maximum feedback? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Carmen, which is to be TFA on 6 April, is an inappropriate choice for this test. "Maximum feedback" is all very well, but does not necessarily bring sound judgement. There is bound to be a division of view on the issue, and the necessary debate should not be conducted in the hothouse atmosphere of a TFA, when all sorts who have no interest in the Opera Project, or in opera (but have an unaccountable zeal for infoboxes) will want to contribute. In these circumstance the debate will most likely descend into the usual pro- or anti-infobox argument and no positive outcome will eventuate. I would favour a lower-key experiment, on a popular opera that is not in line for TFA; perhaps The Bartered Bride or The Magic Flute? Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to bringing the finished infobox here for comment? Or are plans just things that get airily sketched to distract the opposition? As for this one on the right, I can't see why the grandiose repetition of some basic facts from the opening sentence or two of the text should trump what is currently there, ie a list of Bizet's operas in chronological order. I had really hoped something interesting and useful might have been dreamt up by now. I would be all up for the article being moved to Les hommes de voiture, though almost-instinct 21:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That would certainly be better than the navbox currently occupying the top-right corner, which would be better as a more 'traditional' horizontal navbox at the foot of the article. The image is perhaps too tall for that location, though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, wait: There's already a horizontal navbox at the foot of the article, listing the same works. The current !Infobox duplicates this. How ironic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What is at the head of the article is a navbox which also serves to italicize the title, depict the composer, and list the operas. It is not an infobox. And yes, there is currently some duplication in cases where those horizontal mega-navboxes have been developed for some composers, but they vary quite a lot in their quality and consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 08:35, 4 April 2013?

That would be why I referred to it as a "navbox" and "!Infobox". There are other methods to italicise article titles (e.g. {{Italic title}}). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec - how ironic) picture: there's a crop for TFA, which could be used. Bizet's works and more in the context of Carmen are at the bottom of the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with Brian on this. A TFA is not the appropriate place for an "experiment" to get "maximum feedback". Gerda, you said there was no rush. The idea was we would work up a possible box, discuss it here, I would write up some stuff about it being available for use and how to use it, and then it could be implemented by editors who want to use that option. Instead, you start proposing "experiments", in a TFA no less, and 2 days before it is due to appear. I consider that to be quite disruptive. We can discuss the general idea of the current infobox, and its potential use in a separate section below. If there is a reasonable consensus, we can start using it in less high-profile articles about popular operas, or even Carmen, but several days after it has been on the main page. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Of course the size of the image is too big, and Bizet was French (Georges). Also: the genre description of opéra comique has caused some confusion to the readers in the German Wikipedia and the term was removed there; explaining the term, as done here in the lead, avoids such confusion. As for trialling the template on other operas: it seems to me that the state of {{Infobox opera}} is far from stable and settled. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right. The box is far from stable or finished which is why this proposal is both premature and inappropriate. The discussion of what to include in the box and how it is to be labelled is still ongoing and I hope that all who want to input on the mechanics of it (as opposed to the general principal of having one) will make your feelings known at Template talk:Infobox opera. It would be very welcome. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Templates, like articles, are never "finished". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Note Why is Andy Mabbett taking part in this conversation? See this community ban (active from August 2012) [6]: "User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day." --Folantin (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to report my comments here to WP:ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to take it to ANI. I'll take it to the closing admin (or another available admin) if you continue to discuss this scheduled TFA. Folantin (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't see any reason to wait. The judgement call as to whether a line has been crossed is an admin's to make. Done. almost-instinct 09:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Carmen is four acts long. The sloppiness combined with the going against the previously agreed plan makes it ever harder for me to assume good will; to fear that no attempt at consensus is being made, just a long battle of attrition until a minority view prevails over less ill-mannered resolve almost-instinct 09:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[ec] A suggestion on a talk page is hardly going against consensus; and you are required to adhere to WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You are required not to discuss Today's Featured Article, scheduled or nominated. --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Noting that increased difficulty in assuming good faith is not the same as saying that one has stopped assuming good faith. I don't know if there's a WP law requiring you to read accurately what people have written. It seems to seem that by misreading me you yourself might possibly be failing to assume good faith etc etc etc almost-instinct 13:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that I didn't say "you have stopped assuming good faith". your "...a law requiring you to read accurately what people have written" comment is apposite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You wrote, elsewhere "Note that on the latter page, A-i is also calling another editor's good faith into question". I would just shush now, if I were you almost-instinct 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"to fear that no attempt at consensus is being made, just a long battle of attrition ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we not allow Andy's various comments to de-rail this discussion. He will continue to argue over each tangential point until the main point of the discussion is lost. Nor should we do so. The main point of this discussion is whether a still to be finalized infobox should be added to an article which is scheduled to be TFA in less than two days time, which incidentally would necessitate making other changes to the article and its layout. The view so far from the majority of us here, including that of the editor who brought this article to FA status (and is not a member of the project) is that this would be unhelpful and inappropriate timing. Gerda, I'm asking you as a courtesy, primarily to Brian, but also to the rest of us not to continue to pursue this avenue. There are other articles where the template can be tried out once it is reasonably finalized. Voceditenore (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is hardly the time for this. Almost everbody is thoroughly tired of this kind of thing by now and the suggestion has not been thought through properly. I think a moratorium on this kind of discussion would be in order. --Folantin (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The digital equivalent of you both putting your fingers in your ears and humming. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• See Brian's comment in the section below (Opera infobox proposed contents). Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Carmen, later

Rubbing my eyes (just recommended praise instead of sanctions to change minds): I made the suggestion thinking that prominence on the Main page could result in more input from more voices for the template-to-be. If the main author and others are against it, I will certainly not pursue it further for that date. - I did not propose an infobox for Messiah (Handel) when it was TFA on 23 March, but had one in Messiah structure, viewed more than 2000 time then, no comment, no complaint. - The Carmen idea came to my mind when I went over the TFAs of the recent past to see if they have an infobox (most of them have one). I will leave the sloppy proposal above for history, sorry for silly mistakes. - Taking in comments, we might look at something like this, for later, of course, no rush ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, can we please not conflate everything into one discussion like this. This discussion was about adding an infobox to the TFA. I'm going to open a separate heading where people can comment on the kind of infobox you are proposing, and you can get more input about your proposals for the box's contents. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Opera infobox proposed contents

I have transferred this discussion and the gigantic infobox accompanying it to Template talk:Infobox opera. Please continue it there, everyone. The more input the better! Gerda, if you want to encourage people to discuss the opera infoboxes there, that's great, but please don't do it by pasting whole infoboxes here on the project's general discussion page. Voceditenore (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the reason I left the project and Wikipedia all together. Members cant even talk about things directly related to the project without being told what they can and cant talk about by those that own the project. Keep up the good work in driving away your own project members. 70.49.89.231 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

?? The discussion was transferred there at Gerda's request. The discussion is continuing there, where it can be more focused. No one is shutting it down. Voceditenore(talk) 17:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't even see how arrogant you are do you. "please don't do it by pasting whole infoboxes here on the project's general discussion page." Who the hell are you to tell good faith editors not to post things here that they wish to talk about. You reverted a question I had not long ago for the same self righteous reason. Time to evaluate your approach to the project and its members. --65.95.51.99 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What question was reverted? What had you wanted to talk about? I was so puzzled by your assertion that I checked the history of this page back to July, and couldn't find any instance of a question being reverted by me or anyone else. The point about not pasting stuff like entire infoboxes on the page, is that it makes it hard to load and tends to skew/cramp the formatting, for no good reason if the main discussion is taking place on other OP pages. I also reduce the size of images pasted here (or replace them with a link) for the same reason. Voceditenore (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look through the archives too and still have no idea what the IP is referring to. --Folantin (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

After an even more extensive check of the talk page archives, this page's contribution history going back several years, and the contributions of the editors on our participants' list, it is clear that the above person has never been a member here and has never had their comments or questions reverted on this page, either as an IP or under their real user name. Nor have I any reason to believe that this editor has "left Wikipedia all together" [sic]. Quite the contrary, in fact. Voceditenore (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm 100% certain I know the identity of our IP friend and he's (ahem) not entirely what he claims to be. Still, his concern for "good faith editors" is deeply moving. --Folantin (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• In view of the trouble I foresee if Carmen hits the main page in approx 30 hours, with this infobox question still an unresolved hot topic, I have asked Bencherlite to defer the article's TFA appearance until the debate has reached an agreed conclusion. He may or may not agree to do this; I fear that, if the article does appear on 6 April, the infobox issue will adversely dominate the appearance. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I you don't want to try an infobox now, there will be no mentioning of the topic until 4 days after TFA day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Iphigenia

Since no posts seem to get replies at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology and this is an opera heavy template, I am wondering if you think {{Iphigenia}} is presented correctly of if you think it should be split. I have never studied either of these plays, but since I was creating {{Electra}}, which you guys might also want to comment on, I created it too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Iphinigenia seems OK in terms of layout. I don't see a need to split it. The Electra template looks good too but I'd remove "Media" from the title. It's kind of misleading. Most people think of media as sound clips or images, especially in the context of Wikipedia. I wouldn't call the articles on her relatives, for example, "media". Is there a reason you added it to the title? I think just "Electra" is better. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I use the term media because the United States Postal Service uses the term media mail rate to refer to books, manuscripts, CDs and DVDs. I have been looking for someone who could give me a proper collective term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the postal service uses it to refer to literal physical objects, not the stuff that's in the template. I can't think of a better collective term to use but I don't see why you have to use one at all. Isn't simply "Electra" enough? Voceditenore (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the templates. "Iphigenia" has "Plays" where there is only one play for each opera but "Opera" where there are several operas - surely "Play" and "Operas" would be better? Similarly, in "Electra", I'd prefer "Operas" rather than "Opera". Hope this isn't too picky. --GuillaumeTell 09:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the close attention to this topic. You may also want to look at similar templates I created for {{Medea}} and {{Oedipus}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, I looked at Iphigenia and recollected this discussion incorrectly. I changed it to plural. Now that I think about it though, I think the group lists should be plural because although there is only currently one of each with an article, there are likely several of each. I think it is possible that others that are currently redlinks will be added to the template over time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Dido and Aeneas

You opera guys should enjoy {{Dido and Aeneas}}. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy most of it, but not so much "Music". I would place the Lamento to the Purcell opera, and not mention the other - what if we list all collections with "Remember me"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved the Lamento. Can you tell me how many songs on the album are related to this myth?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Purcell is mentioned twice, - very little connection, and not elaborated in the article. If kept, full title please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Orpheus and Eurydice

Have a look at Template:Orpheus and Eurydice. I will deploy it soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I like it! For those who don't use popup, how do you feel of adding the names of authors for plays and other multiple entries? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I know I am not so consistent from one template to the next, but I can do that. What do you mean by "other multiple entries"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for consistency within this template. Multiple: poetry, novels ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The most complicated template yet (Faust)

I have created {{Faust navbox}} (Also note the discussion at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move). This is one of the most complicated templates that I have ever created. Any advice and or assistance in reorganizing it would be great. I am sure many things remain missing from the template. Feel free to help fill it in. Other comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there are several articles the belie, omit or muddle the widespread association with Faust legend. Some things may be omitted from this template just because the current WP article gives little reason for it to be linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think for example the two films 'Student of Prague' should be axed; the articles don't mention Faust, and the only thing in common is that the hero does a deal with the devil - but if that is a criterion there are literally hundreds of fairy stories which could be included. That also makes the 'Devil and Daniel Webster' a bit rocky, to say the least. The article on 'Devil and Daniel Webster' asserts, without any source or justification, that it it 'a retelling of Goethe's Faust'; this is simply not true. What distinguishes Goethe's Faust (and the Faust of legend) is that he himself is a magician/learned fellow who deliberately seeks to trade his position and esteem for (what he imagines is) love, which he has otherwise never experienced.--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking around WP at what constitutes Faustian, things are quite broad (See Works based on Faust and Deal with the Devil). Basically, I included things in this template that point to deals with the devil involving short term gain in exchange for "your soul". However, music and art are a little different because music or art associated with such stories are O.K. I feel both The Devil and Daniel Webster (film) and The Devil and Daniel Webster are very Faustian. I draw the line with something like The Devil's Advocate (1997 film), where someone decides to work for the devil. Also "Young Goodman Brown" is widely regarded as Faustian, but the WP article does not support this. In all honesty, the template may need another run through because I was figuring things out as I went along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! (See my talk why I did not get to this sooner, look for Karlheinz Oswald.) I wonder about the order of things (left column). As for the last template: for people without popup I would add some authors/directors of films etc., - these titles look so similar, - but I understand that the template is large already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not only open to reordering the left. I am open to suggestions on three or four groupings to that only part of the template is open at a time. The template could be sectioned (with show/hide buttons) into Screen (Film/TV/Video game), Stage (Plays/Opera/Ballet/Musical), Print (Prose/Poetry/Comics), Music (Classical/Other). But Opera could be in Music and Plays could be in Print. Not sure should be where. Not sure if this is so large that it would be more useful with hidden sections. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It really is a nice piece of work - bravo. I feel uneasy about making criticisms. One problem is that web pages aren't three-dimensional - there's a number of cross-currents (i.e. derivatives of Marlowe, derivates of Goethe, derivatives of the opera, etc.) I would definitely solicit feedback from the various projects where this template would appear. It's very nice. :) -- kosboot (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to deploy this template in its current format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)