Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Archives Table of Contents

Chronological lists: Rossini's Adina

I was just wondering what year this opera should be put under on the table of Rossini operas. The opera was composed in 1817 but didn't premier until nine years later in 1826. Which year should be used on the table?Nrswanson (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My sources (Opera Grove and Viking) say that the music was written in 1818. Viking places it after Mosè in Egitto, which seems to me to be the best place to put it in the navbox. I'll add the role-creators to the table and make a few (sourced!) amendments to the text. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (currently preparing a stub for La pietra del paragone).

Is it an exception to the GuillaumeTell rules then? I thought the Rossini operas were listed by first performance. No? -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as discussed here last time around, hard cases make bad law. If we list rigidly by date of first performance then Janacek's Sarka will have to come after The Cunning Little Vixen, which is barmy. If we list rigidly by date of composition we run into endless problems with revised versions. So what the GT rules ought to say is something like "list by date of first performance, but date of composition may be used in individual cases if there is a significant gap between composition and first performance". In the case of Adina, eight years makes a great deal of difference - using 1826 puts it squarely into Rossini's late French period, which really doesn't make sense. Pragmatism, that's my middle name. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine to all that. Would you like to reword the guideline for cases like this when we don't list by premiere? (Case by case discussions can take up a lot of time.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. One can't be too prescriptive about this, and in the last analysis it isn't a matter of earth-shattering importance. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think that's an improvement. -- Kleinzach (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This may get us out of having to reorder Wagner and many others, but what about the evidently more controversial Krenek? Wouldnt it be simpler to suggest following Grove? Sparafucil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Category deletion

I've nominated Category:Prima donnas for deletion: see [1]. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inspired (not really the right word!) by the discussion of singer category reform on the Prima donnas CfD (see above), I am wondering if we might start by merging the triple attribute (nationality/genre/vocal range) baritone cats all to Category:Operatic baritones. (These are unmatched for any other vocal range.)

The list is:

Category:American operatic baritones, Category:Australian operatic baritones, Category:Austrian operatic baritones, Category:British operatic baritones, Category:Canadian operatic baritones, Category:Cuban operatic baritones, Category:Danish operatic baritones, Category:French operatic baritones, Category:German operatic baritones, Category:Hungarian operatic baritones, Category:Portuguese operatic baritones, Category:Puerto Rican operatic baritones, Category:Russian operatic baritones, Category:Spanish operatic baritones, Category:Swiss operatic baritones, Category:Ukrainian operatic baritones. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Composer of the Month for March

Our previous attempt to decide this was inconclusive (see here). I suggest extending Rossini for another month. There is still a lot of work to do on his operas. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll certainly be happy to carry on after Rossini's 52nd (I think!) birthday next week, but I'm not sure how many others are interested. Xav71176 started Maometto II and Nrswanson has done Adina, but I haven't noticed much other activity (sorry if I've missed anyone).

Incidentally, as well as adding in role-creators, I've redlinked some of them, such as Michele Benedetti, Marietta Marcolini, Geltrude Giorgi-Righetti, Luigi Zamboni, Nicholas-Prosper Levasseur (aka Nicolas Levasseur), Henri-Bernard Dabadie, Laure Cinti-Damoreau, Ferdinand Prévost, Giuseppe Ciccimarra and Benedetta Rosmunda Pisaroni, all of whom have an article in Grove but not WP, and could be candidates for Singers of the Month. Again, I'm not sure if anyone (other than me) would be interested in creating articles for them, however.

One of the other suggestions last time around was Balfe and co, but Adam Cuerden seems to have softly and suddenly vanished away.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to do Marc-Antoine Charpentier (not many operas to deal with). BTW I haven't done anything on Rossini as yet but I do have one of the short operas which has no article (can't remember its title offhand, sorry) so I could do that too. --Folantin (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Three I'd be up for are Hindemith, Milhaud (archive is handy for me) and Saint-Saens. But I do quite like Kleinzach's suggestion of having several ongoing projects. Could there be a script to retire them from the PO page when activity drops below some threshold? There are after all a few Verdi leftovers too for the to-do list...Sparafucil (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to keep Rossini for March as well. There's still a lot of work to be done, and I should be able to contribute more to it now. (I got sidelined this month sorting out a complete hash that someone had made of articles about Telemann's works). It would be good to follow through on the Rossini 'project'.Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's three votes for Rossini so I have posted his name (above). -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Singer of the Month for March

Provided we want to continue SoM, I'd like to make a strong plea for having GuillaumeTell's red-linked Rossini role creators for March. It would add a lot to articles on Rossini operas that we already have and would be complementary to the February's CoM. Plus I love Rossini.;-)Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think it's an excellent idea. -- Kleinzach (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Going once.. going twice... unless anyone objects in the meantime, I'm going to fill in the March SoM with Rossini singers later today. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FA lists up-to-date?

Hi there. I'm trying to get a list of all FA-class articles covered by this and similar WikiProjects. I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Featured articles/Featured lists (I removed Porgy and Bess, which got demoted a week or so ago) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Featured articles (but nothing for Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music), but I'm not sure if those lists are up-to-date. For example, Beijing opera is not on that list. I'm trying to pick out the classical music and opera articles (and more 'high brow' articles) from the popular culture music articles at Wikipedia:FA#Music. I normally use the relevant subcategories of Category:FA-Class articles, but I don't think the Opera, Composers, or Classical Music wikiprojects use an assessment scheme. So I'm asking here if this list complete? Beijing opera (missing from the opera list), Concerto delle donne, Rebecca Helferich Clarke, Guqin, Blues, Himno Nacional Mexicano, My Belarusy, National Anthem of Russia, Josquin des Prez, Witold Lutosławski, Olivier Messiaen, Mor lam, Leo Ornstein (missing from the composers list), Dmitri Shostakovich, Sonatas and Interludes, Sylvia (ballet), Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), Joseph Szigeti, Thespis (opera) (missing from the opera list), Tōru Takemitsu. I've updated the lists where I can, and made a new section for the Classical Music wikiproject, but I may have missed some - if others could help make sure this is all up-to-date, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth also checking with the Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner Projects. They are independant of the Opera Project and they do have assessments. (Thespis (opera) belongs to G & S). Moreschi may also be able to help. He has worked on a number of opera FA-intended articles. Chinese opera is not covered here. We explain that on the Project page (section 11.4 [[2]]). Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the corrections. :-) I see that W. S. Gilbert is listed at WP:FA under "theatre and literature". Should he not be under "Music" with the operas and with Thespis (opera)? And I won't be the only one to get confused about "Thepsis" and WikiProject Opera - maybe the relationship between WP:OPERA and WP:G&S could be made clearer? Or maybe it comes down to the question: is Thepsis an opera or not? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opera has always been listed under Performing Arts (alongside Chinese opera). This obviates problems with having it under either Music or Drama (or Theatre). Gilbert and Sullivan and Wagner are daughter (or descendant) projects of Opera. The works of both Sullivan and Wagner are indeed regarded as operas, but these projects are far more intensive than ours (we have about 450 composers to look after not just one!) so in practice they are independant. (Gilbert was a librettist so I suppose it's OK to have him under 'theatre and literature'.) Does that explanation help? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On Gilbert: as well as being a librettist, he was also a playwright and poet, so I think that "theatre and literature" is the place for him - except that Theatre, like Opera (as Kleinzach points out above) is a Performing Art and, incidentally, the recently promoted Her Majesty's Theatre was once an important opera house and falls within the scope of this project.

Thespis (opera) is more problematic: It was an opera, but only two numbers and some ballet music survive, apart from the libretto, so these days it's 80% libretto and 20% music (maximum). On the other hand, the article has a lot of stuff about critical reception, performance history and reconstructions, so on balance I guess it should be under Performing Arts/Opera. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that Gilbert belongs under literature (He wrote 80 plays and huge amount of other humour pieces and poetry) and that Thespis belongs under opera. Although most of the original Thespis music is lost, Thespis continues to be performed fairly regularly (this year, I know of a professional production in England and two amateur productions in the U.S.) using either repurposed Sullivan music or newly composed music (often in "Sullivan-style", and almost always using what remains of the original Sullivan music). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cfm: Category: American operatic baritones (and 18 similar)

In the cause of singer cat reform, I've put 19 cats up for merging to avoid over-categorization - in this case of the baritones. They are all triple attribute cats (nationality/genre/vocal range). AFAIK all the other categories have two attributes. The cfm is here. Thanks. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rosemary Kuhlmann

Just letting you know, on 25 February 2008, "Did you know?" was updated with a fact from the article on opera singer Rosemary Kuhlmann. I would like to encourage you all to nominate your articles for main page entries like these to give opera articles more exposure to the rest of the community. Thanks all.Nrswanson (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Theatres versus opera companies

I have noticed that in the case of several foreign opera companies there has been a tendancy to contain the opera company under the heading of the theatre or venue in which the company performs. An example would be the Bolshoi Opera which is under the wikipedia page Bolshoi Theatre. I personally find this to be confusing and would prefer to make seperate articles for the actual physical building and the opera company in such cases. I was wondering what you all think?Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and there is a section about it on the project page (Section 8.5) here. The Bolshoi article is quite short (relative to its subject) so I don't really have a problem with it. If it was expanded significantly it might be worth splitting it into two. Do you have any other examples? -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There are so many. Look at the List of opera companies page. There are several companies that are listed under the name of the theatre.Nrswanson (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, but can you tell us which ones you think are problematic? Or do you they think they all need splitting? -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I personally think it would make more sense to split all of them unless it is customary to refer to the opera company by the name of the theatre in Europe. Particularly since the theatres often host ballet and orchestra performances in many cases and are not just home to the opera company.Nrswanson (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the present practice of only splitting the articles after they have become substantial. But maybe we should ask other people what they think? -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of wholesale splitting of the articles until or unless they become particularly long, or the theatre's primary purpose is not for performing opera from a single company, e.g. Sydney. There are several theatres particularly in Europe which are synonymous with their opera companies (regardless of the fact that they also have ballet companies) - the Vienna Staatsoper, La Scala, and even the Royal Opera House. (Their opera productions are always referred to as ROH productions not RO productions). As Kleinzach mentioned above, the ROH article has been split and frankly both Jay and I find the result quite problematic. The Royal Opera article largely repeats material about the administration of the Royal Opera House, which in addition to being a theatre is also an arts organization, sub parts of which are the Opera, the Ballet, and the Orchestra. The administrative structures of these theatre/opera companies are highly intertwined and difficult to separate, with the organization's chief executive also having considerable input into into the repertoire and casting of the operas. Until Tony Hall took over at the ROH, this was certainly the case, and continues to be the case with Vienna and La Scala. There is also the issue that most of these big European opera houses don't have fixed companies as such (apart from their chorus and orchestra). The main singers come from all over the place. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Virtually all the prominent opera companies in Italy are synonymous with their principle theatres via a 'fondazione' (foundation) of the theatre. The Rome opera is run by the Fondazione Teatro dell'Opera di Roma (The Teatro dell'Opera di Roma is also the name of its principle performing venue, although it also performs in the Baths of Caracalla and in the Teatro Nazionale. Likewise La Fenice also performs in the Teatro Malibran, and the Fondazione Arena di Verona performs in the Teatro Filarmonico during the winter. The situation with the Royal Danish Theatre is different and warrants a separate article from The Royal Danish Opera (and the Danish National Opera, for that matter). But like I said, wholescale splitting strikes me as not a terribly good idea. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well per Voceditenore comments I guess splitting would not always be beneficial and it appears each case will have to be reviewed individually. I will say though that most of these articles are confusing and don't clearly distinguish between the actual phyiscal building and the company itself which I think doesn't read well to those who are not familiar with the practice of associating a theatre with a company (a practice not common in the US). If the pages are to remain as they are than perhaps we should start making them more clear. This is an encyclopedia and many people aren't as educated in the practices of the opera world. Perhaps if we set up a standard format to these pages it would solve some problems. I would suggest an opening that clearly explains that the title is synonymous with the name of the opera company or the home of the company. And then a section on the actual history of the physical building. Then a section on the actual opera company and it's performance history up to present day. That could be followed by seperate histories on the ballet, etc. Of course, if it makes more sense to integrate them into a singular history than that is fine as well. But right now, many of the pages are confusing and they have a lot of information gaps in them. That was really why I wanted to seperate the companies from the theatres, to foster better pages about the actual artists and artistic achievements at the various opera houses, including not only historical information but also notable current events.Nrswanson (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the articles are weak in terms of architectural information. I'd certainly welcome more information about the architects and the features of the buildings and how they have been modified over the years. On the other hand I don't see any point in creating separate articles where this information hasn't yet appeared. Re US practice (and indeed many small companies the world over): if the company doesn't own a theatre that's fine - the article is then just about the company. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Nrswanson that the relationship between the theatre and its associated opera company should be made clear in the opening paragraph. Ditto an article structure starting with the building itself and then moving on to the companies. Virtually all the current articles in them have gaps which can be gradually filled in and if the sections become article size, then we can think about splitting them on a case by case basis. Meanwhile, there's a LOT of work to do on the individual articles. If I can ever get the time/energy, I'm going to tackle the confusing mess that is Royal Opera, London. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael L. Vincent/Articles for deletion

Articles considered for deletion that may benefit from a review by one or more members of this WikiProject.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

(I am placing this request on the talk page, unsure where to list within the project.) Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To do list

The 'To do' lists are once again being compiled by the bot. If all goes well they will be updated once a week from now on.

Here is a (very) short list of articles needing verification: Iris (opera), Mariana Nicolescu, Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini, Roy Cornelius Smith, Lyric Opera of Chicago, Pol Plançon, Vinson Cole, Helen Phillips, Les mamelles de Tirésias. -- Kleinzach (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Santley

I notice that the article on baritone Charles Santley has been greatly expanded recently. Could someone interested in British Opera please take a look? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a really interesting and well-written article. It's not my area at all and I felt I learned a lot. Perhaps it would be useful to also have a few lines about his personal life? I assume he was married and had children from this reference.[3] One thing to look out for... 59.101.25.183 made a lot of edits to that article along the way, some of which added unreferenced personal opinions/evaluations of singers (as he/she has done in several other articles). Most of the ones in Charles Santley seem to have been removed or referenced by other editors. But you may have missed some, e.g., "the magnificent dramatic soprano Therese Tietjens". So worth taking a close look. You might also want to explicitly indicate in this footnote [4] that the ref is to the 1911 Britannica. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Composer of the Month for April

Any ideas? Marc-Antoine Charpentier (1643-1704) was suggested by Folantin but there are few of his operas needing articles and his obvious companion, Lully, has already been covered. (Any other possible combinations with Charpentier?) How about Johann Strauss II (11 red-linked works), or early Singspiele composers? -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll probably handle Charpentier myself since I have the sources to hand (although there are composers he could be paired with such as Campra). --Folantin (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here heard (or heard of) any of the Johann Strauss II redlinked operas? I certainly haven't. The words "scraping the barrel" are forming in my mind, and I am beginning to wonder whether "composer of the month" is what we ought to be doing. Three points:

• I'd rather start an article assessment process (gasp!) than write articles about operas I know nothing about, educational as the latter might be.
• I wonder whether we ought to draw up a priority list of operas that are redlinked, which might include one opera by every composer in the corpus whose operas are all currently redlinks, plus a selection of other operas that seem especially deserving.
• We might want to consider improvement drives for important composers, such as we are currently doing for Rossini and have done in the past for Mozart and probably others. The assessment process would help here.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

CotM has been effective at widening our coverage (e.g. the current effort on Rossini) and enabling us to include a number of minor composers who wouldn't otherwise have received any attention. (Unfortunately it's often difficult to mobilize everyone to take on a minor grouping, e.g. the Singpielers, though it's a great learning experience for us when it happens.)

• An assessment process is something different. We need to discuss it separately. The Wagner Project assessment was labour intensive. (A lot of time was spent assessing 40 articles.) We now have 4,100 articles (recent count) and we'd need to consider the logistics of the whole thing.
• IMO a priority list of redlinked operas is do-able on the basis on The opera corpus. If you wanted to do a draft, I'd be happy to go through it. On the other hand reviewing The opera corpus and taking out the really obscure stuff might be more practical. (I've had another look at the Johann Strauss II redlinked operas and I agree there are some minor titles there.)
• Improvement drives are fine but then isn't that what we are doing on CotM anyway? (Combining the drives with assessments sounds ambitious . . .) -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly can do a draft of priority redlinked articles from the opera corpus. I'd also be happy to suggest "really obscure stuff" that can be zapped. There is a lot of it.
• It would be much easier to do an improvement drive for, say, Rossini, if there was a clear list of what is lacking from each existing article. IMO, we already have at least stubs for at least 90% of the operas - not just Rossini operas - that are likely to be of interest to WP users. Just saying "Rossini is now CoTM" means that everyone who wants to help has to work through the bluelink Rossini list to find out what needs doing to existing articles/stubs. Why not precede this with an assessment which results in a "to do" list? That, if done over a period of time, composer by composer, will build up a WPO "where we are" database such as many other projects already have and we don't.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The improvement drive is a good idea but it implies more work. Do we have enough contributors to attempt this? (Up to now few participants have been willing to agree to a kind of 'division of labour' approach - one person covering Grove, another Viking, another recordings, another the synopsis etc. - and we've failed to involve new project members in CotM.) Anyway, perhaps it would be preferable to discuss these ideas under appropriate individual headings/proposals? Putting them under 'Composer of the Month for April' will just mean they disappear into the archival long grass. -- Kleinzach (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the idea of an assessment drive. There are very few of us on this project but I think we're all very knowledgeable about our subject areas, so we don't need talk page guidance of the Start/B-Class kind to tell us what needs fixing in an article. For instance, I could look at a page on a Handel opera and instantly spot which features need adding. However, I do agree it might be time to start focussing on a selection of individual operas rather than composers in our CotM. We've probably done most of the major composers and, as Guillaume Tell suggests, quite a few of the remaining ones, such as Johann Strauss II or Scarlatti, aren't really amenable to the CotM treatment because many of the items from their large bodies of work are pretty obscure today. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard we have used in the past is an entry in Grove or Viking etc. If an opera has a lesser profile then there is much point in starting an article. (From time to time misguided editors try to transfer complete lists of operas from composers' biography pages to The opera corpus and this may have happened with Johann Strauss II.) Nevertheless we still have hundreds of 'bona fide' red links waiting for articles. Stubs on even relatively obscure operas generally develop after the CotM treatment and the prominent box has also served as an advertisement for our work. Having said all that if we can't agree on how to pursue this (for example this month with Marc-Antoine Charpentier (1643-1704) and André Campra (1660–1744) - a viable combination in my view) we should end 'Composer of the Month'. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy with Charpentier and Campra as composers of the month for April (there are more items by them we can add to the opera corpus). "Nevertheless we still have hundreds of 'bona fide' red links waiting for articles". Sure, but a lot of them are by composers who only wrote one or two major operas so the Composer of the Month treatment as it is at the moment doesn't suit them. Anyway, perhaps we should decide on our Composers of the Month for April in this section and maybe start a new discussion in another section concerning the future of the CotM in general. --Folantin (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thematic grouping of two or three (or more) historically-important, 2nd-rank composers has worked well in the past (e.g. the Czechs or Salieri, Sarti, Sacchini) Anyway that's two votes for Charpentier/Campra! -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start to compile a list of operas which have slipped under our radar here [5]. Perhaps we can create a future CotM from a combination of some of these examples. --Folantin (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's useful. Perhaps GuillaumeTell can add his suggestions to the page as well? -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Anyone is free to contribute, although I'd urge them to be selective and not simply transfer huge numbers of redlinks from the Opera Corpus page. I think we will have better results if we aim to be representative rather than exhaustive. For instance, Scarlatti (IIRC) wrote around a 100 operas, but rather than trying to create little stubs for all of them we should focus on creating decent articles for three or four. If an opera is historically important, if it's the best known work of an as yet unrepresented composer, or if it could have a viable article not just a stub (e.g. if there's a recording of it) then please add it to the list.--Folantin (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be large numbers of red links on The opera corpus. Scarlatti only has three. (If someone adds the other 97 we ought to delete them.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that's true for Scarlatti (I've even added another to my own list), but some other composers on the Opera Corpus could do with a more selective approach. For instance, I've only chosen the most famous opera by Alfred Bruneau out of the half dozen there. How many of the Michael Balfe red links are ever likely to be articles and which Peter Winter work would someone who knew about him pick as a representative example? --Folantin (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Winter's best known work is Der unterbrochene Operfest. The others given are also significant. Michael Balfe was being promoted by Adam Guerden. (IMO that list needs to be culled.) Bruneau looks OK to me. Any other lists that look inflated? -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Last call: any objections to Marc-Antoine Charpentier (1643-1704) and André Campra (1660–1744) for April or other suggestions. -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've now posted Charpentier and Campra. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Hambly afd

I have put Daniel Hambly up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hambly. -- Kleinzach (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)