Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Archives Table of Contents

Opera Infoboxes

I am working on some infoboxes to make it easier to navigate around the opera articles. These are the first two:

Any comments/criticisms? - Kleinzach 10:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The opera lists box is a great addition for ease of movement between different aspects of opera. Bravo.

Vivaverdi 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done! This is slightly unrelated, but what would people think of making period categories for operas as well, eg Category:Baroque operas Category:Classical music era operas? It seems to me that it would help with browsing, etc. Mak (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Would the box link to categories (unlike articles as above)? If so do the categories exist? How many periods would there be? One Wikipedia page only gives Baroque, Classical and Romantic for everything from Monteverdi to Puccini! - Kleinzach 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the Genres box. Is this a good idea, and, if so, are these the best we can do? Specifically, there aren't all that many Ballad Operas (are there?), the only Dramma giocoso that I can think of is Don Giovanni, Género chico rings no bells with me, and Savoy opera is rather limited in scope. Where is Comic opera? What about the very large number of operas that don't fit into any of these genres? Opening the Viking guide at a random page, I find that some of Mascagni's operas are described variously as Tragedia, Melodramma, Commedia lirica e giocosa, leggenda drammatica, Tragedia lirica and Dramma lirico. (And they don't all count as Verismo!)

This site has a rather comprehensive list of all the "genres" used by librettists and composers for their works... food for thought. --GuillaumeTell 15:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That site lists 1,505 genres (counted by machine, I hasten to add). Might be too many for a box . . . Actually Grove gives the ‘official’ composer’s designation for each work so we know how widely these vary even when there is little appreciable stylistic difference.

The box idea is to make navigation easier and pull the articles together more. The selection reflects the genre material we have now. Those selected in the box all have their own articles and are listed in the main Opera article. There is no reason not to add to the list - if we have articles to link to. As always I think it better to be inclusive rather than exclusive. However I hope that we keep to genres (groups of works composed in a similar musical style) rather than collections of operas with similar subject matter (e.g. science fiction operas, rescue operas or whatever). - Kleinzach 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that when the box is included in a page, that page's link is white, which is disorienting since it's very hard to see. I suck at tables, so you'll have to experiment with that yourself. In Grove's Opera article it gives 76 genres and closely related artforms (under "Opera, §III 4. Performance and repetition." at the bottom). This may also be too many, but I agree that the genres given are somewhat limited. However, I don't know much about Opera genres, or which ones are the most important, or the most encompassing. I would choose some broader-ish groupings to begin with, which is why I was thinking of the Baroque, Classical, Romantic, 20th century options, but these may be too broad. My thinking is that this would help the musically literate who aren't quite as opera literate to browse the opera articles. I would also like to put in a little plug for redlinks within the boxes, especially for things which you think definitely should have an article, as it helps give people ideas of what articles to write, and is an encouragement to do so. It's worth it to have a redlink if it means a newbie sees it, writes a little stub, and is brought into the community. My first article was a redlink, and that seems to have turned out pretty well for me. Mak (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure how to rectify the 'missing link'. (It should appear in black.) Perhaps if someone sees a box where this doesn't happen we can borrow the extra code? I am pro-red link and I believe GuillaumeTell is as well, however I think we need to decide how many different boxes we need (genres, lists, plus ? plus ?), what they are for and where they are going. For example the 'lists box' goes under each list to show the browser what other information is available and how to get there. If we did a 'periods box' we would need to consider where it should go. - Kleinzach 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now converted the infoboxes into templates, I haven't solved the 'missing link' problem but I am working on it. - Kleinzach 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about having an infobox for each opera, say in the style of the historic battles one in Battle of the Boyne. Gerry Lynch 11:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I wonder if you could make a template to show how it would work? As an example you might use Il campiello as this is relatively 'finished' production. - Kleinzach 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed now. I am not sure what was happening before, but I changed the code and it worked! - Kleinzach 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Gerry's idea is well worth pursuing, though I shudder to think of the amount of work involved for opera articles already on Wikipedia. --GuillaumeTell 13:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What I have done is to produce two boxes to hold information for two series of pages. Individual boxes on individual pages would be laborious. There is however a type of re-usable fill-in box available but in the case of operas most of the info that might be inserted is variable (e.g. the number of roles in each opera). - Kleinzach 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another box for Opera terms. Once again the choice is related to what we have now rather than in the future (and I've excluded vocal terms: soprano etc.) Comment? Kleinzach 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, except that some might think that Castrato is a vocal term like Soprano (maybe Coloratura too?) --GuillaumeTell 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but this is very much a work in progress. We can decide what goes in which box as the idea develops. - Kleinzach 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermann Goetz

I've translated what's in the German article. I'd appreciate if someone who knows more about his work could check what I've written, and if someone more experienced in the style of these articles could check that. Gerry Lynch 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a couple of very small typo corrections. You are too modest! The article is presented very professionally! It will be great if you have time for more translations. The German Wikipedia is generally ahead of us and there is a lot of good stuff there waiting to be used - for example Hans Werner Henze. - Kleinzach 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also corrected a typo, and echo Kleinzach's encomium. This might spur me on to do the article on his Taming of the Shrew, which I saw at Wexford (and have the programme for) way back when. George Bernard Shaw thought highly of Goetz. --GuillaumeTell 00:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hans Werner Henze translation - really useful information. If I am not pushing my luck, another candidate (shorter this time) is Florian Leopold Gassmann. - Kleinzach 10:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

List of basic opera topics

This (ancient?) article is probably unknown to most of us. Should it be deleted, and if so does someone have a good method of doing this? (It isn't easily redirectable.) - Kleinzach 18:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The list is currently fairly useless. However, it is conceivable that if the Opera article becomes very thorough, it could become useful as an external "See also" section, which could help the uninitiated get a start, without being overwhelmed by information. If you think something should be deleted, you could either WP:PROD it or WP:AFD it. Perhaps since this might be more controversial you should AfD it. My feeling is that it needs some work, but not necessarily to be deleted, but I'm not that interested in fixing it up, so if others wish for it to be deleted, go for it. Mak (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The parent category of Lists of basic topics has apparently been deleted so I have WP:PRODed it. - Kleinzach 10:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fairly useless" looks like the understatement of the century to me, as none of the bizarre collection of listed topics is basic to an understanding of opera. Furthermore, one (Curtain call) doesn't point anywhere, another (Acoustics) doesn't point directly to anything related to opera, another (Standing ovation) isn't particularly concerned with opera, and another (Falsetto) is about 1% (at most) about opera. Even Opera house, which leads to the worldwide list of Opera Houses, is not going to enlighten anyone new to opera. Let's get rid of it as soon as possible - it's an embarrassment!

On Kleinzach's last point, the parent category of Lists of basic topics may have disappeared, but there's still the List of basic topic lists --GuillaumeTell 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is my first PROD - I understand it should disappear within 5 days. Should we PROD Giulietta as well? - Kleinzach 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've prodded Giulietta. Mak (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just found Zerlina and prodded that as well. - Kleinzach 11:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that it has gone, it leaves a rather lonely red link on the List of basic topic lists. How about simply putting our nice new "Opera Categories" box in there for now?? It would be a start... Vivaverdi 16:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That makes some sense. What do other people think? - Kleinzach 16:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly worth doing for now, but it isn't exactly a list of basic topics. --GuillaumeTell 17:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo for Russian opera articles

I suggest this logo for the Russian opera articles:

[[Image:Russian Opera logo1.jpg|50px]] This Russian Opera article is part of the Opera Project

It can be placed at the bottom of the article. (Meladina 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Nice! It would be good to have more of these for other countries' operas, maybe a Valkyrie or Papageno for German opera, Mephisto for French, Butterfly for Italian... (And a more distinctive one for the Opera Project userbox rather than just the boring old Wikipedia globe.) I'm not volunteering - I'm hopeless at graphics - but I'm sure there are more imaginative people around here. --GuillaumeTell 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Category infobox

I have made an infobox for opera categories (i.e. all the links point to categories not articles). Any comments? Omissions? (See below)

It shows the categories we have now, rather than an idealized schemat. - Kleinzach 23:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Arts and Performing arts categories are necessary in this context. Mak (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I put Arts and Performing arts at the top to show the line of descent, but it's not essential and we can take it out if it isn't helpful, bearing in mind that the scheme is not hierarchical anyway, but rather a list of top level categories under 'Opera'. - Kleinzach 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for taking out Arts and Performing Arts (unless you feel they are useful for Wikipolitical purposes), as they just look rather out of place. Overall, it looks good and professional. The problems come when you actually click on many of the categories, and I wonder whether we could have some sort of clean-up-the-cats sub-project before launching this on the world. To take one example: Operas by Genre doesn't include "Dramma giocoso", although there's an article with that title. Apparently Don Giovanni is a Melodrama (along with Un Ballo in maschera, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, Samson and Delilah, King Roger and other miscellaneous operas. And Operas by nationality leads to a mixed bag of mostly rather short and not-very-good articles with some glaring omissions such as French and Czech opera. --GuillaumeTell 09:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have taken out Arts and Performing Arts (above). (Actually we can have different versions of this for different purposes - and yes, there is a Wikipolitical side to this. I have been involved in efforts to make sure Opera is not pushed down in the category structure!). One of the purposes of the box is to open up exactly the kind of comments that you have just made, and yes again, we do need a kind of clean-up-the-cats sub-project. However this is not a trivial undertaking as it would take time and may involve some long discussions. Would you be willing to take the lead on this, I wonder? - Kleinzach 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll give that a definite Maybe. --GuillaumeTell 00:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Terrific. I have started a new page called Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Categories. It's all yours! - Kleinzach 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just catching up on this page today... I very much like the look of this box. It's excellent. Vivaverdi 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) In fact, I've created a new desktop shortcut. It's a great means of going anywhere in wiki for anything opera-related.Vivaverdi 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stefan Zucker

Would anyone like to have a go at this one? It is tagged "This article lacks information on the importance of the subject matter." - Kleinzach 10:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did Stefan Zucker. Have you ever heard him sing? Hilarious! --Ssilvers 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Opera Project articles on the Wikipedia Main Page

Meladina's articles on Sergei Lemeshev and Ivan Kozlovsky are cited on the Main Page. Congratulations! - Kleinzach 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

I have been trying to quantify the growth of the Opera Project. Having spent some time with the Arts Project, my impression is that this is the most dynamic of all the individual arts projects.

There is an automatic category scan at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?

Unfortunately this doesn't work well - apparently the English Wikipedia database is corrupt.

So I have done a manual count of opera articles. My total is 1,834 (including 551 operas, 491 singers, 394 composers and 183 opera houses and companies).

Incidentally, I have now made over 5,000 personal edits according to the counter at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=&dbname=enwiki_p and I'm looking forward to retirement. Would anyone like to take over as janitor?

Kleinzach 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone could replace you. Your help and support are incredibly important. (Meladina 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Thank you but the success of the Opera project has been a team effort. GuillaumeTell, Viva Verdi, Buondelmonte, and Makemi have all made terrific contributions and I should also mention the work of Moreschi, Alexs letterbox and DrGeoduck and last but not least yourself. Your own rate of production over the last month has been the highest of all of us! - Kleinzach 09:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting tool; I had no idea it existed....

I find I've made 1700 edits on 499 distinct pages since last November when I joined. Is there an end in sight, I wonder.....

Vivaverdi 15:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Composer of the month for July?

Who should we have in July? Some candidates: Donizetti, Gluck, Offenbach, Rossini and Richard Strauss. (Next month of course is Hans Werner Henze.) - Kleinzach 10:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Donizetti sounds good to me; my only qualm is that given the state in which his opera articles and biography are in currently, we will probably need two months rather than one to do him justice.Moreschi 15:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The same could probably be said of most of them; there's a lot of red links in the Rossini article as well.

Please sign OK? - Kleinzach 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Verdi? Most of the operas have at least stubs about them, but there are a number that could stand some serious beefing up. --AlbertHerring 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor Verdi are all stubs, though the more popular operas have more substantial articles. Would you be willing to take on some of the articles and if so how many?

There are a lot of Donizetti articles to start. For this you probably need access to Grove. A lot of work there certainly. How many of us are really interested in Donizetti? - Kleinzach 23:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in Donizetti (and have access to Grove). I've seen ten operas of his. But I'm also interested in Gluck, Offenbach, Rossini and Strauss - in all cases rather more than in Handel, Meyerbeer or Henze. Chacun à son goût. --GuillaumeTell 00:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind tackling a few of the Verdi stubs. As for Donizetti (and Rossini, come to think of it), my father has a pretty good book on bel canto which lists every opera by both of them, complete with plot.

Ma...(to quote Rosina), I'm in the middle of the after-college job search right now, so I don't have as much time as I'd like to write stuff up for Wikipedia (hence my reluctance, as yet, to place myself down as a contributor for this project). Hopefully I'll be a bit freer come July, and would be able to handle more writing then.--AlbertHerring 00:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. That was two votes for Donizetti, so let's go with him. The opera corpus lists 11 blue links and 28 red ones. Rather a lot. It may be better not to attempt all of them but do a subsection and try to do them well. Thanks. - Kleinzach 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Opera article.

Rock opera, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't have much to do with opera as it is traditionally thought of, but in fact it's something else that is starting to pique me on this particular article. The "Contemporary Trends" section (or non - section) has been blank ever since I first saw the article (six months ago, perhaps)? Are there any plans to develop it? It is ,I suppose, a sorry reflection on the current level of good (and performed-more-than-once) operas that are currently being composed, and which are worthy of a mention on Wikipedia. Perhaps a decent idea would be to relabel it "Contemporary and Recent Trends", which would allow for a full discussion of the styles of Britten, Schoenberg, and Berg etc. The other section which is currently blank is "development of an opera audience", which can't, surely, be so hard to write about. If these two things get done (and, when I get time, I'll have a go at the latter) the article isn't quite so dreadful. Any thoughts? Best to all, Moreschi 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No one is working on contemporary/recent trends as far as I know so if you want to have a go at it that will be excellent. - Kleinzach 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get it all done by 1st of July. Moreschi 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Grove Opera set available

There is a set of Grove Opera available in paperback. This is a fairly rare event. Since the books are so important for us I thought I would mention it here. Please contact me for details, but note that I am not connected in any way with the sale (which is on eBay ending June 13). - Kleinzach 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that piece of information. I checked on it on eBay, and bidding has started at $85.00.....

Vivaverdi 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, It was sold for US 128. I hope one of us got it - it was quite a bargain! Kleinzach 13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Duplication of material in revised Comic opera article

So far we have had relatively little duplication in opera articles and I think this is healthy. Now the Comic opera article has been rewritten to cover the same area as the articles on Opera buffa, Opéra comique, Operetta, Singspiel, Zarzuela, Género chico, Ballad opera, Musical comedy etc. What do other members think of duplicating information in articles? - Kleinzach 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Opera templates

Here are two templates suggested for the discussion pages: [[Template:Opera1]] {{Opera1}} [[Template:Russian opera]] {{Russian opera}} Please make your comments. (meladina 10:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC))

All looks bright and beautiful to me; however there should be a "This" before the words "WikiProject Opera" in the first one and I don't quite understand the second,unless what's meant is "This is a Russian Opera article which relates to..."etc. Yours, Moreschi 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

For the first I suggest we keep the wording as: This article is a part of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers, librettists and singers, directors and managers, companies and houses, and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!

I like the icons but perhaps they should be larger - using much more of the available space. Kleinzach 11:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just realized that the links for the Template:Opera1 go in all kinds of random directions. Hardly impressive. I suggest taking them all out except for the Project and the project talk page - after all that's where we want people to go! - Kleinzach 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few cosmetic changes to the template above. Hope that is satisfactory. Shall we now adopt this as our main template? Kleinzach 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Include singers at premieres?

The guide on the main project page suggests: "The list of roles may include the names of the cast at the premiere (or premieres)." A general rule would be helpful. Should all opera articles list the opening night performers (when available)? None? Only when the cast list is somehow interesting (what constitutes interesting?) (and if so, should the point of interest be noted in the article or the Talk so that future editors know it's there for a reason)? These lists are readily available and I'm happy to add them en masse if they won't be considered clutter. Fireplace 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a noble offer! Yes, we have discussed this, and yes we would like to have them - ideally in tabular format (with role name and voice type), as for example in Il campiello. Perhaps only Handel operas, and a few others, have these lists at present. - Kleinzach 07:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

When I've seen this done, it's usually pretty interesting, for a number of reasons. I think if the information is readily available it is usually important enough to be included. Mak (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New template

Perhaps someone would like to suggest an icon for the Opera Project userbox? At the moment it has the standard Wikipedia globe which is a bit boring. - Kleinzach 11:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is just an attempt (meladina 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)):

old: if put into the brackets: {{ }} participant|Opera

Themplate:participant|Opera Opera

new: if put into the brackets: {{ }} participant Opera

Template:User ParticipantOpera2

new1: if put into the brackets: {{ }} participantOpera

Template:User ParticipantOpera3

This user is a participant in WikiProject Opera.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Opera.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Opera.

My vote is for the fat lady, not Sydney OH. - Kleinzach 10:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This may seem petty, but my vote is for Sydney OH. It's more aesthetically pleasing and fat ladies warbling is perhaps the wrong image of opera. To the popular mind it has negative connotations. It hardly matters, though. Cheers, Moreschi 11:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Kleinzach and Moreschi for the beginning of this discussion. I feel that any boring stuff can kill the whole idea of wikipedia. This is not a dull dictionary, but a field for a creative imagination that makes our knowledge flourishing and attractive. These are probably not the best solutions, however at least some steps out of boredom. At the moment we can use any of these three. But if someone will have any better idea, please share it with us. (meladina 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

The Singers templates

One more suggestion:

new: if put into the brackets: {{ }} Singer

Template:Singer {{Singer}}

(meladina 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

I like it! Nice one! Mak (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me as well! Moreschi 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Makemi and Moreschi for the favourable notices. Here is another version for a woman-singer:

new: if put into the brackets: {{ }} Singer1

Template:Singer1 {{Singer1}}

(meladina 20:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

And that also looks bright and beautiful. How about one for castrati, however (I'm a big Handel fan)? Cheers, Moreschi 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your joke is accepted. (meladina 20:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

No, that wasn't a joke! I'm planning to majorly expand the current castrati articles come August and a template of this nature would not go amiss. Moreschi 20:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The image at the Farinelli page is nice, though Senesino may be thought to have a more typical castrato look. --GuillaumeTell 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Before going for about 10 days off, here is the answer to Moreschi's request. Please edit as you wish:

new: if put into the brackets: {{ }} Castrato

Template:Castrato {{Castrato}}

(meladina 22:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

Vocal range

An interesting thought flitted through my brain a while back while I was editing Purcell's The Fairy-Queen. It concerned the labelling of the voice parts. The list was in a bit of a muddle, so I standardised all the bass voice parts to baritone, as by modern standards all of these parts are comfortably within baritonal range and tessitura.

Is this the right thing to do? Should we, in cases like these, alter to modern standards or preseve the composer's original vocabulary for these parts? This mostly, I think, applies to Purcell and Blow but also to Handel occasionally as well. My own leaning would be towards a more modern interpretation, but if there are any users with a passion for early - music authenticity, then please feel free to dissent.

One final point to make is that while Purcellian soprano parts are usually within the range of a trained mezzo, often (viz The Fairy-Queen) the tessitura is too high for a modern mezzo, and thus should probably not be mucked around with. Best to all, Moreschi 13:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

When I did the Handel opera roles/vocal ranges I followed Grove using alto castrato etc. I think using the original terms made sense because we were also listing the original cast of the castrato Senesino etc. - Kleinzach 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but what happens when the original cast list is no longer extant? Is this true for (say) The Fairy-Queen. Fireplace? Makemi? Moreschi 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As always I'd recommend following the Grove expert, in this case Curtis Price who does give voice types. - Kleinzach 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Refurbishment of select list of operas

The List of important operas (formerly the List of famous operas) is currently being re-written and re-edited as an (self-referenced) annotated list. Contributors are welcome! There is a lot of work still to be done.

If you wish to suggest titles for inclusion or deletion we'd be grateful if you could do this on the Talk page. We (obviously) each have our own ideas about what should be on the list, but we are trying to proceed on the basis of unanimity! Best. - Kleinzach 09:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking libretto

Should opera articles wikilink libretto? A large chunk of them don't, a smaller chunk do. It initially struck me as overwikification, but the libretto article isn't bad (and could potentially be very good). I have no strong opinions other than that there should be consistency. Fireplace 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other people, but I imagine our typical reader may be going to to see his local opera do Tosca (or whatever), googles and gets straight to the WP article - hence we wikilink soprano, tenor, libretto, opera, Rome, verismo etc. so that he/she can access background information. Hope that helps. - Kleinzach 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, consistency is one of the major problems of Wikipedia - oh for controlled vocabulary and authority control. I'd vote for wikilinking "libretto", and will do so when I see it (unless the consensus here is to the contrary, of course!). --GuillaumeTell 18:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)