Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Archives Table of Contents

Infobox: To remove or not to.. better do it once and for all

To avoid misunderstanding especially from the die-heart fans, I think we should remove the infoboxes from all operatic singers – famous or less famous. Some people put it back on because they thought we being “double standard” – simply because famous operatic singers have info boxes in their articles. I just removed from Pavarotti, Caruso and Domingo. See how it goes from here. (It feels a bit sad for me to remove it from Domingo’s article because it looks “nice” in there..) I truly understand why some people were unhappy and decided to put them back on again and again after some of you removed them. Usually when we have our “pet singers”, we tend to “protect” them.. to the extreme :)) I seriously understand the notion. - Jay 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pavarotti one seems to have made a specialty out of pointing out the obvious. Genre = Classical music? Instrument = voice ? No, you don't say (and I always think that Instrument = voice sounds so strange). Moreschi ^Talk 10:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if you're an opera singer, surely your instrument is naturally going to be your voice? So much for professionalism. Moreschi ^Talk 10:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The background to this was a case of racial abuse from an IP user (now temporarily banned) on the Lauritz Melchior article. (Perhaps comically, he thought I was Chinese rather than a height-challenged German.) -- Kleinzach 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not remove infoboxes. The Opera Wikiproject may not like infoboxes, but webpages about operatic singers and composers do not exclusively "belong" to this project. These are biographies also included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which places a high value on infoboxes for all biographies. I restored the infobox for Grace Moore, who (by the way) was clearly a movie star and pop singer, not "just" an opera singer. (I am not particularly fond of infoboxes; I simply don't think that Opera project participants should be removing them, considering that Biography project participants think they are vital.)--orlady 13:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhm.. so whats the verdict now? - Jay 13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though Biography is more of a meta-project than anything else (it's really too big to be practical for any other usage). In cases where opera singers do plenty of other things as well, we should look at the box on a case-by-case system. Moreschi ^Talk 13:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be a silly idea, but what if there were infoboxes that could be expanded or collapsed, much the same way that tables of contents are on certain page. That way, if you want to see an infobox, you would click on the "show" and it would be visible. If you don't want to see it, you could click on "hide" and the box would shrink into something like "Luciano Pavarotti (show)". --Kyoko 13:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Or probably.. the silliest idea is to differentiate the “pure” and the “mixed” operatic singers. Pavarotti and Domingo for example are unlike Grace Moore. They are not Hollywood or movie stars or pop stars but purely operatic singers .. even occasionally singing “crossover”. So, lets the “mixed” singers keep their infoboxes but the “pure” don’t! This is just the silly thought! I'm laughing while writing this. Sorry. - Jay 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be mislead by the Grace Moore article. She was a serious singer. She worked in Hollywood but so did many other singers of that period. The info box says she sang pop but I've seen no evidence for this. Also she made her debut in Paris not New York etc. -- Kleinzach 06:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is going to run and run, and waste a lot of time and energy. Not to mention potential to-ing and fro-ing with the Biography Project and resultant ill-feeling. I personally don't have strong feelings one way or another. At least the background colour is reasonably tasteful. ;-) Perhaps a compromise could be that infoboxes are only added to opera singer articles if there is an available free use photo. Otherwise they are redundant and distracting since they simply repeat the information in the lead paragraph with possibly the addition of the official web site (if any). Perhaps, the OP could also agree on a uniform format for filling in the fields for standard opera singers that doesn't look goofy. (The 'Instrument' field isn't obligatory for example). Here's an example in my sandbox Best, Voceditenore 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a policy in place now against using infonoxes this says: New infoboxes: We hope all new infoboxes will be proposed and discussed on the project talk page before being added to individual pages. We deplore the use of generic infoboxes that have not been designed with opera in mind, and contain factual errors and ambiguities. Remember: factual accuracy is essential, infoboxes aren't.

This policy can be changed but I hope it won't. THis policy has been successful in getting them off almost all of the 3,500 opera pages. The danger is that if we allow them on singer pages, we will soon see them back on composer pages and the rest, and then on opera title pages as well.

The main problem as ever with infoboxes is accuracy. Lauritz Melchior was described as a singer of 'opera and pop', Giuseppe di Stefano as a singer of 'opera and Canzone Neapolitana', and Grace Moore currently as 'opera and pop', occupation 'singer and actress'.

Melchior did of course appear on TV a few times. Di Stefano did make one recording on Neapolitan songs and Grace Moore did make films - in which she sang. (The Moore article concentrates on her as an American celebrity, failing to mention that she made her debut as Mimi at the Opéra-Comique in 1928 etc.). However there's no doubt that all of them regarded themselves as opera singers and put all their effort in that direction.

I hope we can continue to try keep infoboxes out of opera articles (wherever possible without getting involved in edit wars) as part of a general policy to stick to accuracy and resists trivialization of the articles. (Obviously we should leave them alone when the articles come under other bona fide projects.)

There is a considerable history about the Biography Project, their trawling of opera articles and assignment of them to 'work groups' (to which I can direct anyone interested) however they have a cautious policy on infoboxes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes says Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. With the current work groups, it is generally safe, but, for instance, scientist articles can have some heated debates on these. So, if you are tagging a scientist, academic, or "classical" composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page. Moreover the 'Infobox musical artist' (the one which is being used on singer pages) is specifically for popular musical artists not opera. -- Kleinzach 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Kleinzach has a point about the accuracy of infoboxes. Infoboxes can provide a brief description of a subject, but they can just as easily oversimplify or give a misleading overview of the material. Not having infoboxes for opera-related articles is fine with me. --Kyoko 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems quite arrogant to me to argue that opera singers are somehow "above" infoboxes. If there's one problem I have with the whole Wikipedia classical music community, it is this rejection of infoboxes. They are used in almost every other biography article; why should classical musicians and composers be exempt? Because "factual inaccuracies" could find their way into the infoboxes? Then put the articles on your watchlist and make sure they don't; this can happen with any article. All your arguments against infoboxes apply to all singers, not just opera singers, so unless the convention is to be changed for every type of singer, we should remain consistent and use infoboxes in opera articles too. I am an opera and art music enthusiast myself, but this whole affair seems rather snobbish. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have seen it suggested that opera singers use their own infobox. That is fine; why don't we develop our own infobox and avoid this whole mess of genres and whatnot altogether? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. If there were an opera singer infobox, it could describe the singer's voice in more detail (Fach, etc.), as well as list some signature roles. Some reasons against having an infobox would be the duplication of material in the lead paragraph(s). --Kyoko 06:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the main problems with infoboxes, like all ancillary material, is that they can be made without referring to the article itself, hence the outrageous mistakes. We've been through all these discussions before and I don't think it's possible to make boxes that are proof aganist abuse. Even if they were better designed, that would still be a huge waste of time, putting off genuine contributors from writing articles. -- Kleinzach 07:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Opera Project is not alone in being against infoboxes. The other two closely related music projects: Composers and Classical Music are against having them. Many other projects in the sciences and arts also refuse to have them (see the reference to scientists and academics above). It's not just opera singers. To say, as Cielomobile does, that "They are used in almost every other biography article" is untrue. They aren't. -- Kleinzach 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile – about your suggestion for opera singer specific infobox. The problem with it is, it is not really the issue of “infobox” only. Say that we have a specific “infobox”, how could you tell whether the “said” singer is someone “operatic” or “opera + pop + movie star”. Look at Grace Moore - some people said she is an opera singer but to some, she is a movie + pop star. I just removed infoboxes from Renata Tebaldi, Kiri Te Kanawa, Raina Kabaivanska, Mirella Freni and Ileana Cotrubaş … hopefully nobody would come here and say “hey.. those are pop singers too, therefore their articles should have the infoboxes since they dont belong to opera project only!” If only we could set firm guideline on who are the undisputed opera singers (what I meant as PURE), I am sure, nobody would say anything because opera singers should fall under opera project. It supersedes all other projects (hopefully). But I doubt we could… - Jay 07:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Demarcation disputes will always be present while we have the project system. On the other hand we can take the attitude that Opera is a bit like the Chinese Empire, so wide in its scope that the project can give away territory without really noticing, (e.g the dispute we have just had with Cielomobile over Die Dreigroschenoper and Kurt Weill).

Setting guidelines on singers - other than having a good category system - is really not practical. However there is a common-sense question we can apply here : was opera the main thing for singer X? Re Grace Moore the answer must be yes, re Mario Lanza, for example, the answer is probably no. -- Kleinzach 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You can tell that I don't have strong feelings either way regarding infoboxes, though I also think that a good introduction should be able to convey all of the info that an infobox might say. Really, the one thing I like most about infoboxes is that many of them add a picture of the subject at the top of the page, and you don't need an infobox to do that. --Kyoko 07:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. IMO we should always keep the pictutes and not delete them with the boxes. -- Kleinzach 07:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing to consider about infoboxes is that they display basic information about the subject of the article in a more linear, easy-to-follow fashion (i.e. without prose that can often be difficult to navigate if you just want to get to the basic information). Anyway, if we just create a separate opera infobox, wouldn't that solve all the problems about genre and so forth? If we don't create the infobox and have a policy of not using infoboxes at all, there will still be disputes over whether the singer falls into the opera or popular music category, and hence whether there should be an infobox or not. If we create our own, I feel such disputes will not exist, or at least be much rarer (I think people are more likely to make a stink about there being some infobox than make a stink over there being a popular music infobox in place of an opera infobox). Like Kyoko said, if we made an opera-specific userbox, we could include details like fach and signature roles (signature arias as an optional field as well, perhaps; it would apply to some singers like Pavarotti). Or we could just keep it simple. Anyway, if you don't create fields that would lead to lots of false information, it won't be a problem. Just fields like picture, name, birth and death dates, years active, musical education, fach, signature roles, and signature aria(s). What could be the harm in that? I could draft up such an infobox, although I don't have much experience with templates (but I'm sure I could figure it out looking at the standard {{Infobox Person}}). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, I've drafted up a preliminary infobox at User:Cielomobile/Infobox Opera singer. Does that really seem unacceptable? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that infobox is unacceptable as far as I am concerned. It would soon accumulate the wrong kind of information and invite disputes of a kind obviated by careful phrasing in the article itself. The Opera Project has already decided after long discussions not to use infoboxes. It's all in the archives and those of the Composers Project. I suggest we give the subject a rest for at least another year. -- Kleinzach 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm bringing it up again; consensus can change. What if I removed the signature roles/arias field? With which fields do you have a problem? What kind of "wrong information" might it accumulate? I might post this at the village pump to bring the wider Wikipedia community into the discussion, as these discussions have been limited to an obstinate few. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WHen was it last discussed? We have a fair turnover of membership of the project--Peter cohen 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

28 May (Archive 23) which points to the discussion at WikiProject Composers which lasted from 28 May to 16 June (still unarchived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers). -- Kleinzach 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Would Opera project members have any objection to a bare-bones biographical infobox? For example:

{{Infobox Biography | subject_name = | image_name = | image_size = | image_caption = | date_of_birth = | place_of_birth = | date_of_death = | place_of_death = }} --orlady 12:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes because that would duplicate the lead paragraph to no purpose. orlady please note I have replied to your reversion of the Grace Moore infobox on the article Talk page. Anyone else interested in the subject of Grace Moore as an opera singer is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I think the article treats her as American celebrity instead of as an international singer. Her adventutes in Hollywood were typical of those of singgers on her period, little different in fact from Pavarotti's Yes, Giorgio. -- Kleinzach 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for some singers it would be impossible to fill in even those "bare-bones" fields. See Anna Renzi for example. --Folantin 12:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach, this goes for all biography articles, not just those of opera singers. Why should opera singers receive special treatment (I would argue the same for composers and other people without infoboxes)? The consensus of the wider biography community has been to use infoboxes, even if some people disagree. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile, in my opinion, the infobox (your sample) could lead to bigger argument someday. Yea, it is easy for some singer like Pavarotti but how about Domingo and other singers? (lets use Domingo as an example) I just posted Plácido Domingo complete repertoire in his article. If you read some magazines/newspapers etc, some people would say “Cassio” in Otello as his signature role but, some say “Otello” and there are people who would say “Mario Cavaradossi” and on and on. As a big fan of him, I don’t care what his signature role is, thts why I didnt bother to write. One more, signature aria.. how could we tell other than “Nessun Dorma” for Pavarotti. (again, browse in the net or magazines, many people would come up with their own ideas) Look at List of recordings by Plácido Domingo that I posted few weeks ago – with that list, I could imagine “huge” edit warring someday on both signatures. If you google on the net, many people have many ideas on opera singers signature arias.. with Domingo massive repertoire, it made it worst! I agree with Kleinzach, infobox like your sample would soon accumulate the wrong kind of information and invite disputes – huge edit warring. The format is not acceptable to me, sorry! The best is to leave the article to speak by itself, people can read and let them make their own judgement. - Jay 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we remove those two fields to me, then, just leaving the basics like birth date, death date, years active, education, and fach? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I looked for other groups of editors that oppose the use of infoboxes (such as for scientists), but I couldn't find any. Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin both have long had infoboxes, so it would seem that academics and scientists do indeed have infoboxes. The opposition of infoboxes seems to be limited to the classical music community. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is an {{Infobox Scientist}}. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Category:English naturalists you will find 49 articles. Only two have infoboxes: Darwin and Muffet. Cielomobile, please check the facts before you make these claims. You can also read the Biography Project archives for the names of editors who have opposed infoboxes. Almost all of them were from outside the three music projects. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile's note on the Project page

I have just found that Cielomobile put this note on the Project page:

*Note: this is currently being discussed on the talk page, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Infobox:_To_remove_or_not_to.._better_do_it_once_and_for_all.

I have removed it and ask him never to do this again. The Infobox policy was discussed here and the wording was agreed by the Project. It is not for one editor to announce the policy is under review especially when he/she is the only person challenging it. This is unacceptable behaviour. -- Kleinzach 23:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't put it up there again unless someone else agrees, but the way I see it, it's a bit like a {{POV}} note put on an article. It does not take consensus to note that the POV of an article is being disputed. If one or two edits think that there is POV, then a notice is placed on the article. The fact is, I'm not the only editor who is disputing this (I noticed that you are among only two edits who are adamant about the use of absolutely no infoboxes; other seem to be open to at least the possibility). If the final outcome of the discussion is that we are not to use infoboxes, then there should be no such note, but until then, editors should know that a discussion is currently taking place. Consensus can change, and past decisions is not set in stone. This is an official Wikipedia policy, Kleinzach, and unless you are going to ignore it, it should be respected. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of infoboxes has been discusssed repeatedly over several months. Each time it is re-affirmed that we are not going to use them, then a couple of weeks later (or less) someone comes along and announces, as you have done, that there is a debate in progress. Of course, consensus can change and it should change with changed circumstances, however if we have to engage in these sterile arguments ad nauseam it disrupts contributing to the encyclopedia. -- Kleinzach 01:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've posted at the village pump to get more people into the discussion. Perhaps consensus won't change, but I'd like to give it a chance. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cielomobile's wording should be restored to the project page. It has been clear for some time that there is no consensus on this issue. Wikipedia works by consensus-building, not affirmation by self-appointed cabals. Ongoing and wider discussion is necessary. Andy Mabbett 07:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus-building"? That's rich coming from you, Mabbett, with your persistent attempts to bulldoze everybody into accepting "microformats". --Folantin 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)