Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 55

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Pmanderson in topic Capitalization: La Bohème/Dispute tag on Project Page (9)
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60
Archives Table of Contents

Capitalization: La Bohème/Dispute tag on Project Page (9)

Latest comment: 16 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion
La bohème not La boheme.

I'm sure we should not use the French title of an Italian opera as an example for anything; I doubt we should use the unEnglish La bohème at all. We should use what the general reader will recognize: La Bohème. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, essentially, produce made-up Anglicized versions of foreign-language titles because we think our readers will like it...instead of using the name in widest use. Why not? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree, although the Italian and Dutch articles use "b", but it is "B" in German and Spanish. Can anyone produce an Anglo sleeve or programme using "b"? Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This is covered in the project guidelines (Section 8). We use La bohème following them. It's been discussed in detail in the past (see here etc). Please note that we have well over a thousand articles on opera here - all entitled following the same basic guidelines. Moreover these guidelines follow the practice of the main opera encyclopedias, Grove, Oxford, Viking etc. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I see someone has put a 'Disputed' tag on the guideline (Section 8) on the project page. Can this be removed please? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
OK here we go..
1. Re the general reader "recognizing" the title La bohème - We do multiple re-direct pages with these, so there's no problem for them to find it or in other articles linking to the page, e.g. La Boheme, La Bohème, La boheme, Boheme all redirect to La bohème. Likewise, Google disregards both capitalization and accent marks. Hence in a search on "La Boheme", the Wikepedia article La bohème still comes up first. See: [1]
2. Re the use of a "French" word for an Italian opera - the accent mark is used in the title in the original Italian score. See also the original poster for it [2]. As a prime example of the usage in Italian, see these pages [3], [4] from the the web site of the Teatro Regio di Torino, where La bohème had its world premiere in 1896.
3. Re "Can anyone produce an Anglo sleeve or programme using "b"?" - Well, here's a small selection: The Royal Opera House (London), Florida Grand Opera, Houston Grand Opera, Boston Lyric Opera, Opera Australia... Note that you will find just about every combination of capitalization and use of è/e in English (and non-English) sources (and sometimes even within the same source) - with the reasons varying from differing in-house or publishers' style requirements, to typographical demands, to faulty proof-reading, to ignorance, etc.
4. For consistency over the thousands of opera articles in Wikipedia, and after lengthy discussions over the years (please read the latest one), we have chosen the capitalization conventions used in the four primary English language reference books, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide.
There is clear and long-standing consensus in the Opera Project for this practice and I am thus going to remove the tag. Please do not replace it unless you can fully address these four points. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind. I suggest we leave it for (at most) four days days to see if there are any more responses here. Unless the discussion produces any cogent reasons for further discussing a long-standing and clear consensus (yet again!), we remove it. Really folks, there are far more useful and interesting things for the Opera Project members to do on Wikipedia than flogging a dead horse. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: since La bohème is already used as an example further down the original language titles section, I've now used Mosè in Egitto as the example for use of original diacritics and added a further example from the French opera Les fêtes de Ramire. I continue to emphasise, however, that the Italian name of the Italian opera La bohème is... er... La bohème.;-). Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What Voceditenore said. We already have an established system based on reliable sources. "Really folks, there are far more useful and interesting things for the Opera Project members to do on Wikipedia than flogging a dead horse". Well put. This project has always been more about content creation rather than pointless pedantry. Sorry, but I've got better things to do with my life than engage in endless discussions about the colour of the bikeshed. --Folantin (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC) There are two objections here:

  • That it is a bad example, because there are so few instances of an opera which has a libretto in a foreign language, and a title in a second foreign language, so it doesn't help. I see we use The Queen of Spades, not Pique Dame; what other instances are there?
    • I would therefore suggest Così fan tutte, which is unquestionably also usage.
  • Thar the capitalization is a bad idea, whatever Groves does. We are not intended for their audience. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are you trying to say? That all titles of operas should be 'anglicized' according to subjective (local?) notions of 'usual' practice in anglophone countries? Is that it? I see you have also made this an RFC. What is the point you are trying to make here? Do you object to foreign language style rules being used on WP? Sorry to point this out - especially if you are not a native speaker - but it's difficult to make out what you are trying to say. How about trying again? --Kleinzach (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This "RfC" is a complete waste of time, based on one user's subjective preferences. The attempt to ignore practice in reliable sources is particularly feeble. "We are not intended for their audience". Says who? Their audience is for people who want to know about classical music and opera, as (I would hope) is ours. In any case, I don't want to get into a pointless debate about hypothetical "general readers" who always seem to agree with the viewpoint of the arguer. --Folantin (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Pmanderson: Folantin did not make a personal attack on you. He is also not putting forward his personal preferences but the practice of this project as agreed by all its participants.--Kleinzach (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
complete waste of time, based on one user's subjective preferences seems fairly personal to me, especially since I have not appealed to any subjective preferences, but to observations of the language I speak. As for the "agreement of all its participants": the purpose of an RfC is to see whether the agreement of the three of you is indeed supported by the wider consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not my personal preferences, they're the preferences of the editors of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide. --Folantin (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)\
That's how many by the same publisher?
But the real question is, do they show light on English usage? The answer is: they do not; they do not follow our policy: as the New Grove's puts it, they follow the original style wherever possible, for example in titles. We do not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
(to Kleinzach): You have leapt to a false conclusion; I am a native speaker of English, defending the usage of my native language against pedantry, as the policy WP:NAME requires ("general readers" is quote from there). We should anglicize when English usually does so. We should not follow Groves against general usage, any more than we should follow, say, Pauly-Wissowa. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of WP:UE is: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)". This is what we have done. --Folantin (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is what you have failed to do. We should add that when an encyclopedia pays no regard to English usage, it should be set aside until English has chosen to follow it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
We copied the titles as we found them in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). Grove etc. are the top ones in this field. We follow the usage of experts from reliable sources rather than the whims of "some guy off the Internet". --Folantin (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Another straw man. Nobody suggested "some guy off the internet"; the Schwann catalogue would be an excellent source; so would JSTOR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson: I suggest you either explain what system of opera title names you think we should have, or if you can't do this then remove the dispute tag and the RFC. It's unreasonable to challenge something you don't understand, when you have nothing to offer as a substitute. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I do understand; I simply disagree. We should, as a matter of practice, use whatever title is most common in English, when that can be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. (When it cannot, we can default to original usage.) To do this, we should consider actual usage, and should consult those reliable sources which consider English usage when deciding what to call something. This is what the rest of Wikipedia does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* "[we] should consult those reliable sources which consider English usage when deciding what to call something". That's what we've done. Grove? Oxford? Viking? Now is this going anywhere? --Folantin (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Grove's says it does not consider English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a serious discussion so I have removed the RFC. --Kleinzach (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, Pmanderson, you're confusing capitalization conventions used in English speaking countries for English words and titles (there is no dispute about those) with the capitalization conventions used in English language publications ('publications' broadly interpreted) for rendering foreign titles of works (where there's a fair amount of variation). That's what style sheets are for and why they can differ. However, both the Chicago Manual of Style and the Yale library system follow the same convention used by Grove. You are also confusing cultural practices (e.g. whether an opera is (or should be) widely called by its original language name or some translation into the language of the target culture), with written language style conventions. They are not the same thing. This issue has nothing to do with defending "your" or "my" language" from some kind of attack by the Opera project and/or Oxford University press. I wonder if Oxford University knows that is failing to defend the English language. ;-) In any case, all of the participants in this discussion so far are native speakers of English, albeit of different varieties, including standard British English and standard American English. And where is this RfC you're all talking about? Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This RfC twice removed. I will restore once more, to see if there is outside opinion. If there isn't, or it disagrees with me, fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is laughably pointless. The only good way to decide what foreign-language titles to use in the English Wikipedia is to reflect what is used in the majority of reliable sources. How hard is that? We're not getting a flood of complaints as to what we've done so far...so what ain't broke, don't fix. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, these two are ignoring the complaints they receive, and reverting an attempt to see if there is more opinion outside the project. But this will clearly a matter which will be dealt with by behavioural sanctions if at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What? Look, don't drag "behavioural sanctions" into this. Can we please have a rational discussion without trying to position a non-existent. block button over everyone else's heads? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fine, I'm perfectly willing to discuss. The only grounds for sanction would be removal of the RfC before a reasonable period for comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The case, again, is that we follow English usage. The New Grove's, by its own statement, systematically ignores English usage; that's their choice, not ours. La bohème is unusual, and therefore disconcerting and undesirable, for English-speaking readers. (Grove's may change this in time; but other sources are needed to show that they have done so.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you are trying to impose the grammar of the English language on the Italian language when there is no case for doing so, either in policy or in reliable source usage. Can you not see that this is a bad idea? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This encyclopedia is not written in Italian and should not be. (And La Bohème is French, but that is less important.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I fully agree. Whether the English-speaking world does so is the point at issue. I do not see that Grove's helps us in determining this; their editorial policy would be to adopt the Italian, French, or Czech spelling, even if they were alone in the English-speaking world in doing so.
    • As a parallel, possibly helpful: The Dictionary of National Biography and ODNB never list English noblemen by their titles; that's editorial policy. That has demonstrably not caught on, and is regarded as an endearing eccentricity; but they may well be, in their fields, as important as Grove's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(As Voceditenore points out below, Johnbod did not make a case, he merely made a query which received a thorough response from Voceditenore, underpinning the status quo position.)
I am more interested in what you want to achieve in practical terms. If a consensus favouring your position should emerge, do you propose to canvass predominant English usage (as you understand it) for each title in question, discuss it on that work's talk page, and then, if a consensus is reached, rename the article and all the title's occurrences in the English Wikipedia plus all the Inter-Wiki links in other languages? This seems rather impractical to me, bots notwithstanding. While I have a very slight sympathy for your position, your proposal would only have had a chance better than WP:SNOW if it had been made several years ago.
Despite my slight sympathy, the current system appeals to me because of the clarity and transparency of its rules: if a new article for an opera is added, there is no doubt on how to spell it. So, for the record: I, like everyone else here, believe the current system should stay. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a eventualist. It is sufficient for me to work one article at a time. In some cases, (Cosi springs to mind), Italianate spelling probably is English usage; those can, and should be, left alone. The others should be considered, one at a time, when some English-speaker objects; if nobody objects, we have English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that any time anyone claiming to be an English speaker objects to an article's title, that this is ipso facto an indication that the title might not be "English usage"? And if another person also claiming to be an English speaker supports retention of the title? What then ? A straw poll amongst the "English speakers? Or do we do what the The Opera Project already does and what is recommended in Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages:
"If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English language reliable sources is recommended.'.
We have provided you with numerous English language reliable sources, besides Grove, not only for the capitalization conventions we use in general but also for La bohème in particular, a fact which you consistently and conveniently ignore in this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you really believe that Capitalization of opera titles should follow the style used in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and New Grove Dictionary of Opera (as well as The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide): is the same as If the article is about a work in a foreign language (such as a book or other written work, movie, album, or song), using the capitalization found in most English language reliable sources is recommended. (with which I agree) then I have a modest proposal: Replace one with the other. I will be content, and you will have changed nothing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the Opera Project's position

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1. The Opera Project's clearly stated policy is to use the English language title for foreign language operas when this is what the opera is most commonly known by, and to follow the standard capitalization usage for English titles, e.g. The Marriage of Figaro. That usage for capitalizing English titles is likewise the one followed by Grove for titles in English.

2. When the work is more commonly known and performed with its original non-English title, we title the article as such – a widespread general editorial policy to be found both in Wikipedia and elsewhere. In that case, we follow an editorial style for the rendering of foreign language titles which preserves the accents, diacritics, and title capitalization of the original language. We have illustrated that style here. La bohème, which seems to be the only title so far being objected to here, is a foreign language title. Neither "la" nor "boheme" nor "bohème" are words in the English language nor are they loan words. Note also that how foreign language titles are rendered typographically is not the same issue as whether an article should have an English language title in the first place.

3. To characterize this as a debate about "encyclopedias which ignore English usage", and specifically Grove, as Pmanderson has done both here and in a discussion elsewhere completely misses the point. The style we use for rendering original language titles and when to use them is also used by the Yale University library system and The Chicago Manual of Style, amongst others. It also happens to be the style used in:

Are The Chicago Manual of Style, Routledge, Viking Press, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Duke University Press, Yale University libraries, University of California Press, University of Virginia Press etc. etc. also "ignoring English usage" and therefore to be disregarded by the Opera Project as reliable sources in our naming conventions? Anyone who answers "yes" has a highly idiosyncratic notion of both "usage" and "reliable sources".

4. Johnbod has not "made the case" for Pmanderson's views here. All he said above was: "I tend to agree [with Pmanderson], although the Italian and Dutch articles use "b", but it is "B" in German and Spanish. Can anyone produce an Anglo sleeve or programme using "b"?" (Note when this issue was simultaneously raised by Pmanderson at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), his approach was not supported by the two other users who have contributed so far to that discussion). In response to Johnbod's query, we provided multiple examples of the same foreign language title rendering that we follow from major opera companies in English speaking countries on three continents, and specifically for La bohème. We also pointed out that just about every combination of capitalization and use of è/e for La bohème can be found in English (and non-English) sources (and sometimes even within the same source) - with the reasons varying from differing in-house or publishers' style requirements, to typographical demands, to faulty proof-reading, to ignorance, etc.

5. To keep singling out Grove as some kind of culprit here is both wrong and disingenuous, as is the complete disregard for all the other reliable sources that we've cited who use the same style for the rendering of foreign language titles in English language publications. Grove did not invent that style. Grove follows the conventions widely used by a variety of English language publishers in the area, as we've pointed out above.

To sum up... The Opera Project has a clearly stated and detailed policy in place for rendering opera titles. It is based on the editorial policy of numerous reliable sources and is consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions as they are currently written. Unlike many, if not most, projects at Wikipedia which regularly deal with foreign language works, we apply that policy consistently to avoid confusion between articles. We also provide numerous redirect pages for various possible versions of the spelling and/or capitalization to aid readers in finding the article, and as we have pointed out above, the capitalization and use of diacritics does not affect the Google search results.Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_55&oldid=1190119420"