Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Archives Table of Contents

Falsetto: Edit war that needs some help

Hi all I'm not sure what to do. There is much controversy between two pages right now: Falsetto register and Falsetto. Some of the falsetto people want to keep the falsetto page and there are others like myself that prefer the falsetto register article. How does wikipedia handle this? Also there are people who are trying to redirect falsetto register and getting rid of its material without participating in any of the discussions on the talk pages. Any advice

There is a slight difference between the concept of falsetto and the concept of a falsetto register, but I'm not really sure we need two articles on this. Which title to plump for, though...crikey. Falsetto register is certainly the article with the better material as of now. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed please add your comments to the talk pages on both falsetto register and falsetto. The more people giving opinions either way the better. How do we go about merging one article into the other?Ringnpassagio (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments should be added to the Falsetto page only to keep the discussion coherent. Also, note that the Falsetto register page is a now a re-direct to Falsetto (as per the outcome of the deletion discussion for Falsetto) and there must be no further edit-warring on this. See my comment on the Falsetto Talk Page for a more detailed explanation about this.

"How do we go about merging one article into the other?" The short answer is by hard work. It needs to done carefully and by hand and will involve restructuring the entire Falsetto article to incorporate the new material from Falsetto register and re-writing or removing inaccurate existing material. If you and Nrswanson plan to collaborate on the restructuring and rewriting, I strongly suggest you set up a dedicated 'sandbox' for this instead of making piecemeal edits to Falsetto - something like: User:Nrswanson/New falsetto or User:Ringnpassagio/New falsetto. One of the reasons this issue escalated so much is that a 'quick fix' was sought when a slower more methodical one, informed by knowledge of Wikipedia policies, would have yielded much better results. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Falsetto should probably be compared in this version, which is being reverted by Nrswanson (talk · contribs) contrary to consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto.

What I do not understand is why Nrswanson creates these parallel pages, something he also did for Voice type (Nrswanson's version) and the {{Vocal range}} template (Nrswanson's version). Whether these are improvements or not, forking these pages circumvents WP:CONSENSUS and violates WP:OWN. If these edits have so much support from other editors (even counting just those editors who are not *puppets), why not simply edit the existing pages? / edg ☺ ☭ 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere, [1], [2] I don't think NrSwanson was creating these parallel articles (and the various chaotic attempts at cutting and pasting) out of bad faith or a deliberate intention to be disruptive. I think this was done more in ignorance of procedures for merging and their implications, as well as knowledge of how to move a page properly. Honestly, if he had Machiavellian motives, he could have just quietly re-directed Falsetto to Falsetto register, rather than calling attention to the whole issue by putting Falsetto up for a public deletion discussion.

In a way, he was using the parallel articles as sandboxes while he rewrote the original articles, again an ill-advised tactic. If he wanted to make wholesale re-writes of articles without interruption, he should have used a real sandbox, then boldly added his finished new version in the original article where it could be evaluated, commented on and amended if necessary. The move to Falsetto register could have been proposed later, once the article was reasonably stable.

True, he should have spent more time reading about the procedures and policies in this area before he made his precipitous moves. In addition, he and his fellow voice teachers should not have plunged in so impulsively after the outcome of the deletion discussion, and they certainly should have been completely open on the talk pages about their reasons for suddenly participating. Had they done so, I don't think anyone would have objected and frankly, I welcome their expertise.

But what's done is done and hopefully useful lessons will have been learned. Nrswanson has done a lot of useful editing on the Opera Project since he joined Wikipedia a year ago. What I would hate to see are judgements about the value, accuracy etc. of his future contributions being coloured by his procedural mistakes in this incident and dismissed or reverted by other editors who were annoyed (albeit rightly) by the disruption it caused. They should be judged on their merit alone. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and Popular culture sections

I don’t favor Trivia and Popular culture sections but I don’t have any problems if the sections contained of movies that showed their appreciations to opera arias, roles or the play. But I strongly against cartoons, video games and comedy sitcoms to be added in those sections. Some movie makers used opera in their films as the background music, in the parties or the cast enjoy listening to arias etc, but some of them used opera to make fun of it especially comedy sitcoms and cartoons. I don’t know about you guys, but I feel offended to see opera to be mocked and not only that, it makes me angry to see them in our articles. Some film / cartoon directors used opera arias or scenes to make people laugh by the way it was presented or sang and do you want to see that quoted in our articles? I have removed many cartoons, comedy sitcoms and video games reference from opera articles but I don’t want to do it just because of I feel offended by it. I like to know majority’s opinion about this and then, we make it as a policy - what's dos and donts. To me, opera is a fine art and I like it to stay that way, because it is how it should be remembered and appreciated. I have just removed the whole “chunk” of cartoon references from The Barber of Seville. - Jay (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think lists of every time an editor spots something on TV should be banned. My idea of a good In popular culture section would be a reasonably well-sourced narrative about what non-enthusiasts think about the subject. My favorite example (tho it is not well-sourced) is Broccoli#In popular culture, which does at times accrue trivia and IPC spottings:

• Bad IPC list: Broccoli In popular culture
• Good IPC section: Broccoli In popular culture

Trivia lists are for editors who cannot write. Information so appended should be integrated into the article, provided it is notable and can be sourced.

Per WP:NPOV, I don't think information should be excluded because it is disrespectful of the subject, but examples should illustrate a point beyond Bob Dylan dissed opera; an episode of the popular animated TV show American Dad showed contempt for opera also. Perhaps (I have no perspective on this) in popular culture (North American? European too?) opera is regarded as boring and highfalutin', something repressed ethnicities or classes do instead of fun stuff. If that were the case, omitting that in favor of something that promotes opera would fail WP:NPOV. Positive perceptions would of course also be worth including.

My 2¢. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that I feel quite strongly about and have previously raised here. I do not treat opera as sacred as Jay might, but I agree that passing references should not be cataloged. Just because an episode of X uses music Y as stock music does not qualify a mention. A character in a TV show attending a performance of an opera or even listening to a recording of it should not mention. The New Years Fireworks in Sydney used thirty seconds of music from Prince Igor. So what?

My personal test for trivia is If the trivia gives the reader a greater understanding and appreciation of the work, or the reference is as notable as the work itself (think the Rach 2 in Brief Encounter or the Valkyries in Apocalyspe Now), then there is a case for its inclusion in the article. --Alexs letterbox (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, per WP:TRIVIA I tend to delete these sections on sight, except where the pop culture reference itself is notable (Apocalypse Now, kill da wabbit, elton john's Aida, etc.), in which case I incorporate it into the main text. Fireplace (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Operas by act

User:Piniricc65 has been busy creating categories for 2-5 act operas. There was general agreement here that Category:one-act operas has some utility, but the rest seem insane, unless he/she is going to go through all the operas on WP and add the categories to them, and even then, what's the point? CfD, ayone? --GuillaumeTell (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not wild about it either. As far as I know, every Italian opera seria has three acts and every French tragédie en musique five. This must be the same for some other genres, so it's "tautological". I'd say the number of acts tells us very little about an opera unless it's a one-acter. --Folantin (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of variation in the number of acts in Italian operas, lots of Donizetti's 'serious' operas are two-acters, as are many verismo ones. But I agree, they're pretty pointless categories. Then there are the various versions of Don Carlo/Don Carlos. And Boito's Nerone which is 4 acts. Plus, we never quite 'resolved' the issue of Category:one-act operas. The two act opera Pagliacci appears there, on the dubious (in my view) basis that it is 'short' and often forms part of a double bill, but there's no explanation to this effect on the actual category page. Frankly, I'd get rid of all the "categories by number of acts". But I don't imagine they'll do much harm, apart from confusing people.;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Here's the last discussion we had about the 'one-act' opera category and its problems [3]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said back then: "The problem is that categories are rather blunt instruments". Yep, I still loathe the use of categories unless they're blindingly obvious ones. --Folantin (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from Category:One-act operas, the Categories: Opera by 2-5 acts seem quite pointless to me. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now put these up at Cfd (not an easy process to follow!) here. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apropos Category:One-act operas, I've now removed Pagliacci and added a preface to the page. My reasons are explained on the talk page here [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Romantischen Opern

The name of this category (Romantischen Opern) is ungrammatical German; without an definite or indefinite article, it should be "Romantische Opern". Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought there was something fishy about that title. Please go ahead and rename it. --Folantin (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Can this image be used for Die tote Stadt?

I love this opera so much but not many people know it. I found some photographs of the first edition of the opera score from web which were published in 1920 in Mainz of Germany and in 1924 in Chicago (near close to pd-us).[5][6][7]

http://thompsonian.info/korngold.html

I don't have much experience of uploading images except cc-by-sa or pd-old. Can someone tell me whether it is usable for the article or not? And do I need to get a permission from the website owner if the book falls under 3d object? Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's a close call. I have a feeling if you do upload it, it would have to be under fair use, perhaps {{Non-free book cover}} and you'd need to write a detailed rationale for its use in the article. To be on the safe side if going the fair-use route, you should include only one of the covers, probably the original score published in Germany. But I'm not sure about all this. Have you tried leaving a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? They'd probably provide more expert help. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I actually wanted to avoid the fair use rationale because other language wiki places also need images. I'll try to visit the place as your suggestion. I really appreciate your kindness. --Appletrees (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Korngold died in 1957; +70 = 2027. I'm afraid you seem to be stuck with WP:FUR/WP:FURG. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Madamina, il catalogo è questo

Hello. I have recently fleshed out the article Madamina, il catalogo è questo, which was very scanty and had little more than the text of the aria. Any opinion? Critiques? Corrections to my non-native English? Ideas for improving it? Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to see you at the opera project! Your work made a huge improvement and in my view means the article is now viable. I've left a bit more commentary on the article's talk page. And as for your non-native English, it's considerably better than what passes for 'native' English on Wikipedia.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better! A real exception to my usual prejudice against aria articles. One possibility: a section on how various Leporellos have performed this aria throughout performance history? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Singer of the Month for February

It would be the ladies' turn this time. Awhile back Kleinzach had made this suggestion:

My suggestion would be The great contraltos: Clara Butt, Louise Homer, Ernestine Schumann-Heink, Kathleen Ferrier, Marian Anderson, maybe some others. Taking existing (fairly long) articles on some major figures and bringing them up to project standard would give us benchmarks for future articles. (Some other ideas: Coloratura mezzos before Bartoli, French dramatic sopranos from Calvé to Crespin Régine Crespin . . .)

Personally, I'm not sure why the coloratura mezzos have to be before Bartoli. The Bartoli article itself could use considerable improvement, updating, etc. Any comments, suggestions? A singer or group of singers anyone would particularly like to work on? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As it's now 31 January, it's important that something (anything!) should be inserted into the February SotM box up above before the day is out. Personally, I don't have any views, but will help with whatever is decided (when not beefing up the Rossini corpus, of course - I've just been preparing lists of role creators based on Rick of Stanford's page). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the absence if any other suggestions, I've taken an 'executive decision' and used Kleinzach's suggestion Clara Butt, Louise Homer, Ernestine Schumann-Heink, Kathleen Ferrier and Marian Anderson. Be warned that the Marian Anderson article is subject to daily vandalism by school children. It gets reverted fairly quickly, but what a pain for editors! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Barber of Seville

I need a decision on this - Popular Culture in The Barber of Seville To keep or to delete. As for me, my decision is as always. I do not against entries for "Popular Culture" but I dont think Cartoons or games should be included as references to opera. I do not want to remove the section again and again; therefore I need consensus from everyone in here. Thanks - Jay (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons are an important part of contemporary high and popular culture. The sheer number and quality (i.a. One Froggy Evening, The Homer of Seville) of references to parts of The Barber of Seville in cartoons is extraordinary. Consequently, I contend that in order to be truly encyclopedic, a short section "In popular culture" with verified occurrences ought to be part of this article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I sympathize with Jay, I'm disappointed the Seinfeld episode is missing ;-) A common way of dealing with these lists is to move them to their own article (The Barber of Seville in popular culture for example). See Faust#Other_Fausts for how this might work. Sparafucil (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Micheal, you said "The sheer number and quality (i.a. One Froggy Evening, The Homer of Seville) of references to parts of The Barber of Seville in cartoons is extraordinary"." Yes, I can accept that but what can you say about Woody Woodpecker, Bugs Bunny, Long-Haired Hare, Porky Pig, Daffy Duck and Tom and Jerry? What possibly those "noted cartoons" make the article or the opera so extraordinary? If cartoons like that can be accepted in The Barber of Seville, perhaps we should allow them to be included in ALL opera articles. Last time I checked (even before I join Wiki Opera), cartoon references have always been issues/debates + removed and later added …… until recently when some members in here work together to clean-up the unnecessary trivia/pop culture. My point is, we should have standard guidelines on what is to be allowed and what is not. We can’t give an exemption on a single article but have to look at it as a whole. - Jay (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Michael Bednarek. The resonance of artistic works beyond their original context and audience is an important cultural phenomenon. Opera cartoons and parodies (and Seinfeld|) are often referenced in 'serious' opera reviews, and by opera houses and other cultural organizations themselves. I know of at least one American opera house administrator who says that The Rabbit of Seville was his introduction to opera when he was 7 years old and he's never looked back. Here are just a few examples:

• http://www.andante.com/article/article.cfm?id=16374
• http://www.dallasopera.org/the_season/060702-index.php
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17854152
• http://www.operaamerica.org/audiences/learningcenter/intro/mainstream.shtml

In my view the existence of parody and use in popular culture is an indication of a work's importance, not demeaning or an insult to some kind of 'sacred' art form. Separate articles (as Sparafucil suggested) are a possible solution, but until someone wants to take them on with enough material to make a viable article for a particular opera, popular culture sections in the main article are fine. They just have to be watched to avoid listcruft and to ensure that the other genres and works making the reference are in themselves reasonably high profile. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC) PS. I think Rossini would have loved The Rabbit of Seville;-)

Another PS. (to Jay), I think the cultural references given in in the current Popular Culture in The Barber of Seville are fine, although personally, I'd add Seinfeld. And yes, I think they should be allowed in all opera articles with the caveats I made above. I've written in a similar vein here. And you might find this article interesting. I don't think we need hard and fast rules, and rules about exceptions. Moreover, they're impossible to arrive at. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, but I just hope for the section not to be flooded with all kind of references that do not give any values to the article. Opera scenes/arias/duets have been used in too many movies, cartoons, games, TV or radio advertisements; and if we can’t control it, sooner or later the articles will be too long (just like few articles before) when people can just simply add what they think should be covered under "Pop culture/trivia"- whether they are really useful or not. Furthermore, by allowing this entry, we must constantly check new entries to ensure that the sources/references are correct/true to avoid any false entries (some people would probably add anything for fun). I do not recall which article but it was one day when I decided to run through all the references in one the articles - I discovered (one of them) a self made strip dance. The reference has been there for several months, and the title for the link looks “decent”. PS - I prefer separate article like Faust#Other_Fausts - Jay (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(I'm out-denting here) I think 'monitor' is perhaps a better word to use than 'control'. It's true that monitoring to remove tangential and/or spurious references makes for more work, but a blanket ban and summary removal of outside cultural references can be a net loss to the article. It helps to discourage inane listcruft if the section is written as prose not a simple list. And giving it a section title like "Cultural resonance outside opera" or "The Barber of Seville elsewhere" rather than using the terms 'trivia' or 'pop culture' also helps. When unsure of the cultural notability or relevance of some additions, or if the list becomes too long, it should not be summarily removed but transferred to the talk page (apart from obviously uninformative/silly mentions) where future editors can be requested to integrate the material into the text of the article. The trivia-adders tend to back off when you do that. Here's how I handled it in Cavalleria rusticana. There's been no 'trouble' since with that article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should The Complete Opera Book have its own article?

Discuss at Talk:Gustav Kobbé. — AjaxSmack 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards for "Selected recordings" box and "Roles" box

Are there any? and where? Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. took me a while to find it. It is on the mainpage - Article style and format - Jay (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Prima donna category

The former category "Divas" has now been re-named Category:Prima donnas. I had no idea that the discussion was going on until after it closed (or even that that there was a category of Divas). The problem is, I don't think this is really a viable category even in its re-named form. The basis for inclusion of opera singers in this category is too subjective, as one of the discussants remarked. Note also that despite the definition given on the category page, it curently attracts lots of misplaced entrants (and will continue to do so) and becomes very misleading. For example...

• Opera singers (more or less) who are hardly "distinguished", e.g. Diletta Rizzo Marin, Elizabeth Parcells, Dilber (???), Ashley Putnam
• Pop 'divas', e.g. Aretha Franklin, Tina Turner, etc.
• Prima ballerinas, e.g. Anna Pavlova, Margot Fonteyn, etc

Should we re-propose this re-named category for deletion? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Support delete—I think this category satisfies several criteria of WP:Overcategorization. (I would have thought that Prime donne would be more acceptable in operatic circles anyway .) Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but how easy is it going to be to reopen debate so soon after the category has been renamed? One thing we could do is to remove everyone such as those listed above who quite obviously don't fit (I also spotted Kathryn Grayson and Clara Schumann, as well as Janet Baker, who's about as un-prima-donna-ish as can be). Or we can just ignore the category. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a premature re-opening concerned me too. Perhaps the best thing to do is remove the obviously inappropriate members of the category and if it starts getting filled up again with them, propose it for deletion. Actually, Janet Baker is a case in point of how weird the category is. She isn't prima-donna-ish at all in her personality, deportment whatever. Nor was she perhaps a "star" in the same way Callas, Malibran, Tebaldi, etc. were. But she is "a distinguished female opera singer", by my standards. But then, whose standards do we use for "distinguished" or "a star"? Aaaargh...;-) Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Particularly since, way back in the day of Handel et al, the prima donna was simply the lead soprano of the company, never mind whether or not she was at all distinguished. This one is a verifiability nightmare. No one has a clue what is the correct definition of prima donna, particularly since half the time the word has negative connotations. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, the Prima Donnas Category page lists Category:Mezzo-sopranos and Category:Sopranos as sub-categories. But not every singer in those cats is in the Prima Donna cat, and since those other categories also contain non-operatic singers who have those vocal ranges, e.g. Joan Baez, etc., it's doubly confusing. Shouldn't a sub-category imply that all members of the sub-category are automatically members of the 'super' category? I'm strongly inclined to remove those sub-categories from the page. Does anyone object? In the meantime I've removed the "Prima donnas" category from all the obviously mis-categorized people.Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection here, and while you're at it, you might remove Category:Sopranos from Category:Mezzo-sopranos!! It looks to me as if we need to put all the operatic vocal categories on our watch-lists.

Also, following on from Moreschi's point above, Julian Budden's 3 vol work on the operas of Verdi shows that, in his time, it was the roles, not the singers, which were labelled with the terms "Prima donna soprano" (e.g. Aida), not to mention "Prima donna soprano (leggiero)" (e.g. Oscar) and "Prima donna mezzo-soprano" (e.g. Amneris) and even "Prima donna contralto" (Ulrica). (And Verdi was very rude about the original performers of two of those roles.) --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd support putting the category up for deletion as ill-defined. Like Budden, Rosselli in Grove explains 'Prima Donna' as a role in an opera, not the description of a successful singer, in other words Tosca rather than Callas. If we all vote I think the recent renaming should be no problem. (Sorry not to have been around much recently . . .) -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)