Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archives Table of Contents

Operetta (2005)

Comic opera vs. operetta

Figaro has edited quite a few articles on operetta, replacing sentences such as the following:

Trial by Jury is a comic Gilbert and Sullivan operetta in one act (the only single-act Savoy Opera).

with this:

Trial by Jury is a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera (operetta) in one act (the only single-act Savoy Opera).

I think it's misleading to call these works "comic operas" first, and then put "operetta" in parenthesis. As the departed DrG has maintained, some people view operetta as an entirely seperate genre, though it's often also seen as a type of comic opera. But simply putting "operetta" in parenthesis after "comic opera" indicates that they are synoyms, which really isn't true.

There are quite a few examples of this, all marked as minor and without edit summaries. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Any other opinions? --BaronLarf 14:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

As you correctly point out, comic opera and operetta are absolutely not synonymous. Operetta, as most commonly used, refers to the genre which was most prominent in the late 19th and early 20th century (and arguably was replaced, at least in the U.S., afterwards by musical comedy). Comic opera is a broader genre which goes back another couple of centuries. Let's not imply anywhere that they are the same thing. Thanks for calling attention to this. Antandrus (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree — as a G&S fan, I always thought the main difference between operetta and (any kind of) opera was that operetta involved a large amount of non-sung dialogue. So the only G&S work that could possibly be called a "comic opera" would be Trial by Jury, and I wouldn't call it an "opera" either. :) --Quuxplusone 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Operetta stubs

I've noticed that DrG has attempted to make a new stub category for operettas. They weren't properly made, so I'm reverting back to the opera-stub for the time being until a template is made, etc. Personally I think that opera-stub is good enough, but I'll open it up to discussion. --BaronLarf 16:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I did that because the are a lot of people working in operetta who never visit the opera world. They never see the opera stub list. I was hoping that if they had a list of there own, full of operetta stubs, they would feel comfortable, take ownership, and would be more inspired to work on it. --DrG 18:21, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Operetta stub has been ordered. It takes a week to make one. --DrG 02:15, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

There is now an operetta-stub. --DrG 17:28, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Opera vs Operetta vs Musical theatre

Right now Opera and Musical theatre are recognized musical genres, but not operetta. Do you think of operetta are a sub-cat of opera, or a sub-cat of muscial theatre, or of both? Or maybe it should be on equal footing as opera and musical theater? Any thoughts? --DrG 16:28, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of it being a subcat of both opera and musical theatre, seeing as some operetta is an early form of musical theatre, yet most of it clearly has its roots in opera. Plus, both opera companies and companies that put on musical theatre will produce operettas. So I say make it a subcat of both. --BaronLarf 17:05, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Just as an FYI to other users, DrG has moved Category:Operettas from Category:Opera and is in the process of removing all opera related categories from operetta articles. --BaronLarf 19:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have started a new WikiProject for operetta. The was no single place for operetta, now there is. I have found 63 operettas, only about 12 were in opera categories. Some were in theater, and some were uncategorized. Check out Category:Operetta. I have also started operetta composers, performers, and librettists. --DrG 02:11, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Categories (2005)

Category:Opera versus Category:Operas

Is having both causing confusion? There is also Category:Opera by language and Category:Operas by language. Is the singular devoted more to the art form and techiques, while the plural is devoted to actual examples? Should they be combined? Any comments or insights are appreciated. --DrG 02:57, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

I think that Category:Opera and Category:Operas should be kept; it makes sense to have a category devoted to the opera art form and a subcategory devoted to specific operas themselves. But I think that Category:Opera by language and all of its categories should be deleted. Only the Category:Swedish opera subcategory actually has any member articles. --BaronLarf 03:59, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing Category:Opera by language also. As it stands now, Category:Operas has no articles, just sub-cats. I would like to propose elimating Category:Operas and promoting is sub-cats to Category:Opera. --DrG 20:47, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me as well.--BaronLarf 22:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; Category:Opera should be for opera in genre, including opera houses, opera directors, operatic singers, opera companies, etc. Category:Operas should be a subcategory for specific operas. It should not be an issue that Category:Operas only contains subcategories: see Category:Plays. Merging "Opera" and "Operas" would be like merging "Theatre" and "Plays". Note also that there is no Category:Plays by title, but rather the list article List of plays. --BaronLarf 02:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

These category discussions are driving me nuts! I hope everyone can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. We are all wasting tons of time categorizing and recategorizing because we don't have a commonly held view of how categories should be set up. I think the Category:Plays example above represents what is WRONG with the current system. Plays can only be found in "by nationality" subcategories that really have little to do with drama. If I want to browse through a list of plays, I don't care about nationality. But that is not to say that someone else might want to. Personally, I think we should be able to have both. The root of the problem with categories is that some people see them as a way to index or classify articles, and this has led to the rule about not having duplication in sub and super-categories. Others think that categories are primarily a way to navigate through Wikipedia and articles should be in whatever category should be usefull. I've been trying to forge a compromise on this topic. I hope you will take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 02:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Operas by title

What's up with Category:Operas by title? Seems like this is a superfluous category to me. --BaronLarf 03:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)--BaronLarf 03:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

There has been a pretty intense debate about how categories should be used. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Some people want to see the entire category at once. They don't want to spend time searching through all the sub-categories, especially if they don't know what sub-category to look in. Wikipedia rules prevent an entry from being in a category and its sub-categoy. (so Rigoletto cannot be in Category:Operas and Category:Italian-language operas, because the second in a sub-category of the first.) So Category:Operas by title is a way to list all operas, without sub-cats. This is great for people new to opera. --DrG 05:19, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

If there is an "intense debate" going on about a policy, wouldn't the proper response be to hold off on doing something until after it is resolved?

I too question the appropriateness of this category; it doesn't seem to me to be a genuine taxonomic classification. Where will it lead to? Composers by names? Singers by name? cities by name? books by name? people by name? This hardly seems useful and in fact degrades the category scheme.

DrG, it would be most helpful if you could discuss new categories for opera topics here before you add them. -- Viajero | Talk 10:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How's about just creating an article: List of operas which contains an alphabetical list? The title is currently a redirect to a selective list: List of famous operas, but there's nothing to stop someone creating an alternative list at List of operas which is comprehensive. Reetep; originally unsigned

That would be agreeable to me. Far less obtrusive and solves the problem that DrG refers to, that of someone wanting to see a comprehensive list of all operas. It has the additional benefit of allowing redlinks for operas that don't yet have articles.--BaronLarf 19:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I like the list idea also. We can have both. I don't find the category obtrusive. Genuine taxonomic classification is not the only goal of every category. Helping readers is also a goal. Categories are great for browsing. Check out the composer project and the category project. They are way ahead of the opera folks on this issue. Regarding the "intense debate", it is pretty much over, but this issue still remains unresolved. Some people are waiting for a new release of the wiki software to fix the problem, but the developers are not planning on fixing it any time soon. Others are fixing it with new categories. Others are just abandoning categories altogether. The most of the category work that I have been doing was started by others. "Operas by language" and "Operas by Composer-name" and "Operas by genre" already existed. I just put the operas in those categories. I did create "Operas by title" in an attempt to create a category to give an overview of all operas in one category that others would not feel the need to sub-categorize. This follows wiki convention. Check out Category:People by surname. --DrG 22:42, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

And check out Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Names for a debate over getting rid of that category as well. Operas by genre is the parent category for the different genres of operas. Operas by title is the parent category for... what? The only reason so-far given for the category is so that all operas can be seen at once. This can be achieved with a list. Categories bog down Wikipedia's servers, and having large and unnecessary ones is highly frowned upon. --BaronLarf 00:30, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with BaronLarf. Given the clutter that the new category will create, and given the extra load that it will place on the servers, I think the case has yet to be made. If the category will add a significant amount of functionality to the wikipedia then fine, but at the moment I don't see what it will achieve that the list won't. reetep 08:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Given the extra server load and the extra category tags it puts in the articles, I'd prefer a list. I agree there needs to be an alphabetical listing, but in this case the category is not all that helpful. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• I fully concur with MGM. Radiant_* 14:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Ignoring pragmatics for a moment, I'd think category:operas should have, well, operas in it, rather than be DB-purist parent node for an abstract category hierarchy. As a follow on to this (still ignoring pragmatics), I'd think the existing operas by x categories are what should be lists. Considering the current state of things, I'd think category:operas by title should be deleted and the operas added to category:operas. The "rule" that an article should not be both in a category and in a parent of that category is really more of a guideline. In this case, I don't see a problem with violating it. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:23, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Good, given the comments above, it seems that we should move the "operas by title" to "operas". Does anyone have a bot for this kind of operation? -- Viajero | Talk 17:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with inluding an opera in both Category:Operas and its various subcategories, though it's a marginally better arrangement than a category called "Operas by title." Why again would a list not work? --BaronLarf 21:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• At one point in time, the operas category only had operas in it. But sub-categories followed. Then reclassification. Then came the closely related articles, like British opera and Grand opera. That was the real benefit of "operas by title". It stopped well-meaning people from doing anything except inserting another opera title. I like the concept of moving all "operas by title" into "operas", but I fear that the entire process will be repeated again, by a new set well-meaning folks. --DrG 18:43, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • That's the whole point of this wikiproject, the way I see it; to have a group of people interested in operas on wikipedia watch over extisting articles as well as promoting the creation of new articles. When we come to an agreement on the categorization policy, we as a group would be able to cite this conversation to stop the wholesale change of categories again. --BaronLarf 21:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• This entire issue has been already been discussed in Category:Books. In that category, there are no actual books, but several articles about books, and several sub-cats that hold the actual book entries, including Books by title, Books by genre, Books by author, and Books by year. It seems that with the latest wiki release, extremely large categories are no longer a problem. The Books by title is very large, but the software automatically creates an index and limits each page to 200 entries. This has allowed the category to contain only book title articles, not general book articles. They have also agreed not to put sub-cats of any type into Books by title, because the software update made sub-cats like "Books that start with A" unnecessay. This is very similar to the model I was trying to build for operas. Check it out. I think it would serve us well in the long term. --DrG 02:35, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

I've created the article List of operas to function much as the List of plays does while keeping the listing in alphabetical order. In this manner, DrG's concerns about wanting to look at all operas at the same time can be addressed. Also, this list can be added to to list the date of composition and composers after the opera name, something that couldn't be done in a category.

When you look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title, you'll see that in the February 9, 2005 WP:CfD debate there were eight votes to delete Category:Books by title and all of its subcategories (Category:Books starting with A, etc) and no votes to keep. The fact that the over-arching Category:Books by title was kept looks to me to be more like a mistake by an admin than a consensus to keep that category. Cheers. --BaronLarf 18:50, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have finished the formatting of List of operas. --BaronLarf 19:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Operas by nationality

I see there are categories for British, German, Hungarian and Italian opera but not for French, American, Czech, Russian etc. opera. - Kleinzach 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Various discussions (2005)

The New Grove Dictionary of Opera as basic reference

The leading reference work on opera in the English language is the New Grove Dictionary of Opera edited by Stanley Sadie and others. I propose that we should, in general, follow their rules. They clearly spent many years looking for solutions to basic opera usage problems (capitalization of titles, eastern European and Russian names etc. etc.) and rather than attempt to reduplicate their efforts, I suggest that we follow their decisions. (No doubt there are errors in Grove so occasionally we will present information differently.)

I have added an entry on the New Grove Dictionary of Opera as I found it didn't exist.

Kleinzach 10:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorting

I have corrected the title of Un ballo in maschera (from Un Ballo in Maschera), however this is mis-sorted in 'Category:Italian-language opera' to an obscure lower-case b section. Curiously enough this has not happened to Un giorno di regno which appears under cap G. Does anyone know how to deal with this? Or is this a ghost town? - Kleinzach 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No ghost town :-) -- I believe I fixed it (edit the cat so the entry starts with a capital "B"; the actual category entry is the article title, not what you put in the cat line). Antandrus (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Kleinzach 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Opera House versus Opera Houses

Since I have taken on the task of updating the Opera house section, here is a list of recently-completed houses (in addition to other entries - as one follows links in need of work....).

Dorothy Chandler Pavilion - USA Garsington Manor - UK Gothenburg Opera - Sweden Drottningholm Palace Theatre - Swedden - some major corrections led me follow a link to The Magic Flute, the Ingmar Bergman film NOT photographed there. The film entry has been greatly exapnded after I ran thge DVD the other day. In turn, this led me to create an entry for the film historian, Peter Cowie

National Theatre (Munich), home of the Bavarian State Opera The first of these focuses more on the theatre itself; the second deals more with the complany and the opera performed. The latter could be expanded, but my focus has been on more detail on the house itself.

In the Opera Companies section, I have added Dallas Opera - USA . Did not exist

HOWEVER, THERE ALSO EXISTS A SECTION CALLED OPERA HOUSES which attempts to list in several categories, and then some houses alphabetically (including The Copenhagen Opera House being listed under the letter "T").

I would hope that there is agreement on somehow combining these and removing uncessary duplication. (There are far more links on the "House" pages to "Opera House" than there are to "Opera Houses"....

Vivaverdi 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Various discussions (2006)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on opera? We are also looking for featured articles. (Another Wikiproject, Wikiproject Theatre, listed Porgy and Bess). Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation which we have been discussing 'off-Wiki'. Opera is a relatively weak area here. At the moment we are working on 'fundamentals', style rules, coverage etc. rather than trying to produce great articles. (I assume you want to have illustrated articles.)

Incidentally i wonder whether you would be able to help us occasionally with technical problems. The five of us currently working on the project all have a long involvement in opera, but a short one with Wikipedia. The categories in particular sometimes present problems. - Kleinzach 09:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but I would be glad to help you.--Shanel 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Opera terminology category

I have made a category for opera terminology (similar to the music terminology category). There already are a lot of articles explaining opera terms and it seemed sensible to put then 'under one roof'. There are now about 20 articles in this category.

Kleinzach 01:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing singers (1899-1955)

I have just finished a long article on The Record of Singing, the important compilation of operatic singing (and song) formerly published by EMI. This shows, amongst other things, which singers from the first half of the 20th century are missing from Wikipedia.

Kleinzach 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

In case anyone feels strongly, I have proposed a page move from Belcanto to Bel canto. Feel free to vote at Talk:Belcanto. Makemi 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera buffa merger question

Someone has suggested that Opera buffa be merged with Comic opera. Would anyone like to express any opinion? Mine is on the Opera buffa talk page. Best. - Kleinzach 20:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundant Categories etc.

At the moment we have a large number of entries in the genre category. Are some of these redundant? For example we have:

Category:Children's operas, Category:Fairy opera, Category:Lyric fairy tale

and

Category:Romance opera, Category:Romantic opera

(Is it possible to delete categories, or are they immortal?)

I also see that Category:Operetta is not a sub-category of opera, but an independent category under Theatre and Music. Does this matter?

Musical Terminology is a flourishing category under music, but we have no equivalent category for opera, with the result that there are very few 'technical' articles. Some items come under genres when it might be preferable for them to be terms.

Any thoughts?

Kleinzach 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

List of operas present and absent

I have compiled a list of some 680 operas present or absent on wikipedia.

The page is at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Operas

Kleinzach 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The list is now up to 800. Thanks to those who contributed extra titles.

Kleinzach 01:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good list. Do you know about this website? Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 01:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Our basic source is the New Grove, but it would be good if articles provide links to Stanford etc. Thanks.

Kleinzach 08:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been through the list, turning composers' surnames into forms of names where there are already articles or stubs, none of them (I hope) pointing to redirects. Some of them seem to me to need sorting out, but that can wait. A number seem not to be present in any form, and I intend to create stubs for those. After that, I propose to create stubs for operas without articles or stubs, and to indicate on the list which composers/operas are articles (Bold?) and which are stubs. If anyone wants to join in, feel free. GuillaumeTell 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks very good. I see someone has been adding some Romanian operas. Presumably bona fide. Kleinzach 20:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Finished indicating which composers/articles are not marked as stubs by converting them to bold. Many of these are shorter than some that are marked as stubs, incidentally. About to start adding in operas that appear in the List of operas but not in our list. --GuillaumeTell 23:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been through the list to see that each opera article has a category:Operas tag Kleinzach 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Added all the operas and operettas that I could find elsewhere in Wikipedia. I plan to convert any remaining article-less composers to stubs and then move on to adding some synopses - a slow job. --GuillaumeTell 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We now have articles (or stubs) on all 389 composers listed in The Opera Corpus. The number of operas listed (but not written up) is now about 1,300, which compares to about 1,800 individual articles on opera titles in Grove. - Kleinzach 10:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

What are the opinions on the spoiler-warning tagging of the synopsis section of clasical operas and ballets? I myself find (at least most of) them silly and I just removed the tag from the Swan Lake article. For who will reading the synopsis of the ballet spoil watching it? Not to say, who watch it without knowing the synopsis? Will there ever be anyone who go to read the swan lake article who will think "Dammit, wikipedia should have warned me that the synopsis section would actually give the synopsis! Now the ballet is ruined for me!"

I think the spoiler tag is ugly and used too much here. That a section is named "Synopsis" should be warning enough for anyone who wants to remain ignorant.

But seing that the tag is used in quite alot of other ballet and opera articles I thought I'd ask here before removing it from any further articles. What do you guys here think? Shanes 10:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. I have just removed a spoiler warning from Orpheus in the Underworld and have left a note about it on the talk page. Fortunately we don't have too many of them in front of opera synopses, but I would support removing them when we find them.

Kleinzach 11:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Just adding my agreement. Ugly is the word for the Spoiler banner. Is there some way that the entries with them can all be picked out and dumped somewhere for attention? Something like "Category=Opera and SpoilerWarning=present"? --GuillaumeTell 21:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In almost all theatre, the plot is not the most important thing in the work. Nearly all programmes offer detailed synopses anyway, so any major plot development would not come as a shock anyway. ----Alexs letterbox 06:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness. I agree heartily. Every time I see that banner I feel the itch to edit. I will now feel free, at least in opera articles. Makemi 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that for ALL theatre: I mean, there are some things that ideally shouldn't be spoiled. That said, I agree that "Synopsis" is probbaly sufficient.Adam Cuerden 19:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just purged spoilers from 8 operas (La bohème etc.) that I found after making a search.

Kleinzach 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you and I have been going over the same ground. I've just done 25 (many of them G & S!), and I think that's the lot. --GuillaumeTell 18:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see agreement on this. I just removed the spoiler tag from 3 more ballets, The Merry Widow, The Nutcracker and Sleeping Beauty (Yeah, they slept for a 100 years! Big spoiler that one...). Shanes 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• How about a "spoiler" on Santa Claus just before the article might say, "There's no Santa Claus!" Wahkeenah 23:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AGREE: Remove spoilers. In spite of someone's raving about elitism, etc., they make little sense. Vivaverdi 01:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of arias

What is the preferred way to refer to individual pieces in an opera? Is it:

• The Seguidilla
• Près des remparts de Séville
• Chanson et duo
• Near to the walls of Seville?

No reference work I own seems to have consistency (I don't have Groves). My preferred method would be to have the first line of the piece as its title (As is done in G&S works), but many people know the Toreador Song, rather than Votre toast, je peux vous le rendre. Any suggestions? --Alexs letterbox 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My preference would be for the first line of the aria in the original language, unless the aria was much better known by another name. For instance, except from snooty coluraturas most people I know refer to "The Queen of the Night Aria", not "Der hölle rach", but then again, snooty coluraturas usually refer to the latter. Grove isn't very useful on this, since they don't generally have articles on single arias, and it seems to depend on the specific writer of the article. Perhaps a good practice for within articles is to give the common name (if there is one) and then the first line in the original language in parentheses, so: "Dido's lament" (When I am laid in earth) and "The Queen of the Night aria" (Der hölle rach). My two beans, Makemi 06:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been having a discussion (not within Wikipedia) with a setter of a quiz who insists in asking for "Title of the aria". In vain I point out that most arias don't have titles, though they all have first lines. But then, what is the first line? Why is Leonore's Act 1 aria usually known as "Abscheulicher!", which is the first line of the accompanied recitative, rather than "Komm, Hoffnung", whereas Countess Almaviva's Act 2 aria is, contrariwise, known as "Dove sono" rather than "E Susanna non vien'"? Also from Figaro, what do we call the "Letter duet"? It does have a title, or so the Countess says - "Canzonetta sull' aria" - but it's usually referred to as either "Sull' aria" (Susanna's echo of the title, and the first line that isn't recitative) or "Che soave zeffiretto" (the first line proper of the actual letter and its tune). Then there are arias in two or more parts, like Violetta's at the end of Act 1 of Traviata. In this case, I'd say there's a clear-cut choice, viz, "E strano ... E fors' e lui ... Sempre libera". So I'm mostly agreeing with Makemi (except that the Queen of the Night has two arias - what do you call the other one?). BTW, a lot of the existing articles on individual operas give only ye olde Englishe translations, which are either grim or totally risible. Anything is better than that.

Incidentally, the current Carmen article refers to the composer's numbering, which is given in a completely separate article with musical examples, or at least some musical examples. --GuillaumeTell 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote my (dozen-odd) synopses, I generally gave the first line (in the original language). In the case of lesser known works I followed this by an English translation/customary name in parentheses. (For example in the case of Don Quichotte, I translated all the first lines into English.) So to answer the question posed by Alexs, I'd go for: 'Près des remparts de Séville' (the 'Seguidilla').

Kleinzach 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll update the project page. --Alexs letterbox 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you have used the word 'pieces' instead of 'arias'. I find this odd. We also have monologues, musical sections etc. but arias is a good shorthand for a musical number, so can we use it?

I also feel that your explanation restates the problem rather than solves it. My recommendation would be to use an unambiguous double reference of the original first line plus the popular name or translation. Kleinzach 16:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to think of a name for individual thingys (sorry!) from operas, but can't. Almost any post-Wagner opera will hardly be organised into simple numbers. I suppose composers don't go out of their way to make things easier to analyse. Arias will do. I was a bit apprehensive about pushing a sweeping change, but I suppose I better be bold. --Alexs letterbox 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with 'aria' is that its normal meaning is a fairly self-contained piece sung by only one singer (albeit sometimes another singer joins in, as in In questa reggia, or mutters in the background, as in Recondita armonia). I wouldn't class duets, trios, quartets, quintets, sextets, septets (etc.) or choruses as arias - just think of 'Va, pensiero', or the septet from Les Troyens, or the sextet from Lucia, or etc., etc. I think that 'pieces' is actually better, though not ideal. 'Numbers'? No, sounds more like musicals. --GuillaumeTell 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How about using 'Arias, duets, choruses etc.' as a title then? The idea should be clear enough. Kleinzach 16:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. --GuillaumeTell 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I for one certainly can't think of any alternatives. --Alexs letterbox 08:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change to the main page and edited the text a little. I hope this is all resolved now, but please say if further changes are necessary.

Actually I think the Opera Project page is pretty good now, we have more problems with other pages such as Opera and List of famous operas (for which see the Talk page, 'Standard or famous' where Tom has made an interesting proposal to go over to an annotated list).

Kleinzach 12:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)