Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Archives Table of Contents

July Composer of the Month

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles. Suggestions please. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably be busy with other things in July but I might be able to do one opera. I'll leave the choice of composers to others. (BTW Shoemaker's Holiday has left Wikipedia). --Folantin (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know he's left, which is a great pity. I'm hoping he might be tempted back. In any case, I've left messages on the talk pages of everyone who's listed themselves as an active participant asking them to drop by here if they have time.[] (I've removed one from the list who's now banned, and will later weed out further names if they haven't edited WP at all in six months. It would give us better idea of how many "participants" we really have. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest English Bs - Balfe, Barnett, Berkeleys Lennox and Michael?--Smerus (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I rather like this suggestion. Below are the red-links for these chaps. The list needs to be narrowed down. Does anyone have information on which ones are most likely to be easily sourced?

• Michael Balfe (1808–1870): Amelia, or the Love Test, The Armourer of Nantes, Bianca, Blanche de Nevers, The Bondman, Catherine Grey, The Daughter of St. Mark, The Devil’s in it, The Siege of Rochelle
• John Barnett (1802–1890): Mountain Sylph, Fair Rosamund, Farinelli
• Lennox Berkeley (1903–1989): Nelson, Ruth
• Michael Berkeley (1948– ): Baa, Baa, Black Sheep, For You, Jane Eyre

Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will undertake The Mountain Sylph and see what I can track down of the other Barnett works, there should be stuff about Michael Berkeley's works within fairly easy e-access (shouldn't there?)....--Smerus (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Michael Berkeley's Baa, Baa, Black Sheep and For You and have the programmes for both. I should be able to create articles for them, but will be away sporadically during July. --GuillaumeTell 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I think the opera corpus is in error re Amelia, or the Love Test. According to Michael William Balfe by William Tyldesley, Balfe sang in an opera called Amilie in Dublin 1838 by his teacher William O'Rourke (aka Rooke). But Tyldesley doesn't list this title as one of Balfe's works. There is also a contemporary account of an 1838 London performance of Amelia, or the Love Test in Musical Review (1838) where the composer is given as Rooke. Voceditenore (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • William Michael Rooke (1794-1847) has an entry in Grove Opera. The work in question, Amilie, or The Love Test, was apparently composed by him in Ireland in 1818, but not performed until 2 December 1837, at Covent Garden. --GuillaumeTell 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Now can anyone find anything about Rooke's unperformed opera 'The Valkyrie'?...........--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • see btw Amilie, or the Love Test.--Smerus (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update - have filled this in provisionally as tomorrow is July 1st! Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

July Opera of the Month

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles. Suggestions please. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I probably won't have time to put much work into this - but you never know. Something German, I think. --Folantin (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some German operas compiled from these two lists [1], [2] and this category [3] Anything tempting?

Wozzeck, Mathis der Maler, Königskinder, Jonny spielt auf, Der ferne Klang, Der Zwerg, Dantons Tod, Der langwierige Weg in die Wohnung der Natascha Ungeheuer, Der König Kandaules, Violanta, Prometheus (opera)

I'll do the same for a few more languages in a bit. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some French operas compiled from these two lists [4], [5] and this category [6]:

L'Africaine, Cendrillon, Les Indes galantes, Roméo et Juliette, Aucassin et Nicolette (opera), Hérodiade, La mère coupable, Thésée

I won't bother with English language ones as they will probably be the focus of the CoM and were the focus of the current OoM. Likewise Italian, as they were the basis of the current CoM. Note that whichever language is chosen, the lists need to be narrowed downVoceditenore (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the German list, specifically Königskinder, maybe the Schreker, Krenek and Korngold. What exactly is wrong with the Wozzeck article? As for the French list, I could do the first two, plus the Gounod which is very sparse indeed and ought to be a stub. Not sure how much time I may have, though (I'll have a lot more time in August). --GuillaumeTell 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I was looking for some more mainstream operas to improve (Richard Strauss, Mozart and the like). The "Operas of the Month" of 2009 have generally been taken from List of important operas. Of the suggested German operas, only Wozzeck really fits in there and, as GT says, it's not that bad. On the other hand, I'm probably going to be taking a break from this for July so I don't really mind. --Folantin (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing that wrong with Wozzeck, apart from zero inline citations and multiple {{fact}} tags. Several of the German operas listed above are on the List of important operas e.g. Mathis der Maler, Königskinder, Jonny spielt auf, Der Zwerg. Others on the Important Operas list that could use work (in varying degrees) are Der Freischütz, Eine florentinische Tragödie, Elektra (opera), Salome (opera) and possibly Ariadne auf Naxos. Since German opera is not my area, and I tend to concentrate my work more on CoM, I'll leave it to you guys to select maybe 4, possibly with 2 "mainstream" and 2 "not so mainstream"? We could save the French stuff for August. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update - have filled this in provisionally as tomorrow is July 1st! Voceditenore (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Italic article titles

I stumbled across the template {{Italic title}} and its extended accompanying discussions, see Template talk:Italic title and further links there.

This template allows the title of articles to be shown in italics. So far, it seems to have been applied to many (all?) articles on taxonomic genera and species and some articles on legal cases; e.g. Apatosaurus and Marbury v. Madison. At the moment the mechanism seems to be broken for titles with parentheses, but that is likely to be fixed soon. It is also limited to titles of 50 or fewer characters, probably permanently.

Italicizing titles is a minor decoration, but it may be something the opera project might consider. I find it rather appealing. As a demonstration, I have applied that template to L'incoronazione di Poppea; feel free to revert. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: The template {{Italic title}} has now been fixed to exclude qualifying terms in parentheses, like "… (opera)", from being italicised; example at Adelaide (opera). Due to a recent enhancement of the magic word DISPLAYTITLE, the same effect can also be achieved using that word; example at Alkmene (opera). Again, feel free to revert. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see its attraction. But I'm wondering about the resulting inconsistency unless we get a bot to change them all. There are currently 1,612 articles on individual operas. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Worrying about consistent application of this feature seems to be the second step. First it needs to be decided whether it is desirable/permissible/compulsory. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and, since operas tend to be musical compositions, does adopting italics in opera titles imply that all musical compositions normally italicized should also have their article titles so adorned (and is it desirable/permissible/compulsory)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that such an adornment might apply to musical compositions, albums, and many other classes of articles which are mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Italics. The WikiProject Opera is closest to my interests and I wanted to gauge other editors' opinion here before mentioning it to some sub-projects of the WikiProject Music. Judging by the roaring silence here, that may have been overly hopeful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK then, I'll give my opinion. It's not desirable.

• It looks "busy" (minor point, but is the reason behind the style conventions mentioned in my next point).
• It's not the style used in paper encyclopedias and dictionaries where the title or heading of the article/entry is never italicized. It is only italicized (where appropriate) within the article/entry. I had a look at my hard-copy Britannica. Species and genus names are not italicized in the heading, nor are any Latin or other non-English words and phrases, nor are the titles of works, be they music, literature, paintings, court cases, whatever. The same is true of my copies of the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and the Norton/Grove Concise Dictionary of Music and Musicians.
• In terms of the overall look of Wikipedia, an option of "permissible but not compulsory" will almost inevitably result in glaring and unprofessional-looking inconsistency between articles, not to mention lame and time-wasting edit wars. To become compulsory, it needs consensus, not only to use italics in the titles, but also which terms should be italicized - not at all clearcut, especially with respect to foreign words (more lame edit wars). And it needs to make it into the Manual of Style. I doubt that would happen, but if it does, it would need an army to ensure that all relevant titles are italicized and stay that way.

- Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: I'm not mad keen on the italicised version. --Folantin (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Another short answer: I would suspect that italics in titles would be the not-so-thin end of a very thick wedge almost-instinct 09:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing practice ain't busted - so don't fix it is my opinion.--Smerus (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the look of italicised titles everywhere, however that is accomplished. In reviweing my 600+ articles on my watch list, many ofwhch are opera titles, I have not found any which have been reverted from italic, nor have those I have changed to italic been reverted. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just checked the MOS and at MOS:BOLDTITLE it says:

If the subject of the page is normally italicized (for example, a work of art, literature, album, or ship) then its first mention should be both bold and italic text; if it is usually surrounded by quotation marks, the title should be bold but the quotation marks should not...

So, given that we normally italicise opera titles, the MOS says that the bold text should be italicised.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Erm, but doesn't what you quoted refer to the work title's "first mention" in the article's text, which "should be both bold and italic text", rather than to the actual article title? If I am wrong, then not only should the title of an article about a particular opera be italicized, but it should also be boldface. Or are we speaking of two entirely different things here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. The example mentioned above had already been de-italicised by the time I looked at the article. So I misunderstood things. I've not spotted the italicised titles skimming Viva-Verdi's nhistory either.--Peter cohen (talk)

I misunderstood this whole thing too.... No, I do not believe that titles of articles should be italicized and bolded, only first mention t start of asrticle and thern italicized thereafter.... Sorry. Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between italicizing the work (or term) itself in the article and italicizing the title of the article of which it is the subject. This confusion has made quite a mess out of the discussions at Template talk:Italic title. They all seem to be talking at cross purposes. Voceditenore (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Add me to those who don't favour italicising the title of the article, per Voceditenore's bulleted remarks above. --GuillaumeTell 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus seems to be against them. I'll leave this up for a few more days in case anyone else wants to comment and then archive it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Online resources

Just a heads-up on some new resources I've recently added to the OP Guide to online research:

Images

• The Bibliothèque nationale de France. Its index page for the virtual exhibitions has French and English versions. Sample Google Image search for "Berlioz" on the BnF site.
• Portraits by Carl Van Vechten (all are public domain)
• George Grantham Bain Collection (all are public domain)

Text

• Testament Records specialists in historical recordings, have excellent online liner notes for the recordings in their catalogs. Testament also has libretti available for download as PDF files
• The new Internet Archive section
• The New York Philharmonic's Performance Archive (with works and their soloists) from 1842 to the present.

Re the NYPhil... the poor things were so proud of their new archive that they added it to zillions of articles [7]. Two of their editors are now indef blocked for spamming, as is the IP for history.nyphil.org. Voceditenore (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Selected recordings

• Update - I have now now archived the discussion and updated the article format guidelines accordingly. The archived discussion can be found here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aria page move

Today an editor moved Aria to Aria (musical term) and then redirected Aria to Aria (disambiguation). The move has broken over 600 incoming links, primarily from opera-related articles. Another editor is requesting views on reverting this. Please see Talk:Aria (musical term) for more. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous I've asked an admin to revert this move right away. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been moved back now. I suggest a few more editors here keep this page on their watch lists. Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC:_Replacement_Wording_for_PLOT

I do believe the Opera project might be interested in it. Particularly, if it gets reverted back to the older wording - which, despite the misleading quotation, also varies in that it said "[Wikipedia is not] plot summaries", not "plot-only summation of fictional works - quite a lot of our articles could end up deleted or gutted, for not having enough material not taken from the work itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I find the discussion hard to follow. Don't we have our own guideline for opera plots anyway? --Folantin (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that it broadly has to be inline with that of Wikipedia as a whole. But, yes, we've got expectations that aria names are inserted at the appropriate places.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really that bothered about the general guidelines. This is a specialist topic and - as you imply with your reference to arias - there is a particular way* of writing an opera synopsis which differs from describing the plot of a novel or a film (*actually there are several ways of writing opera synopses depending on the nature of the work - check out my experiment with Purcell's semi-opera King Arthur). --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I likewise found the discussion both hard to follow and quite... er... wrangleful. I honestly don't think leaving either of the discussed wordings in WP:NOT impacts on this project. The whole RFC seems to have stemmed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables (2nd nomination), which was a special case – an entire article devoted solely to the plot of the parent article Les Misérables, which already has quite a detailed plot section. Whatever the outcome of the RFC, I don't see how opera articles could be gutted or deleted. They are never started with a synopsis only. In fact, a detailed synopsis is usually one of the last things to be added to the article. Re synopses in opera articles in general, I may be in a minority of one here, but some of them are in my view awfully long, overly detailed, and frankly quite turgid, e.g. Tosca. I'm not sure if the role of an encyclopedia article is to include blow-by-blow accounts like these. Voceditenore (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's much older than that. That happened mid-way through the discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep coming upon articles (e.g. La bohème), where the summary is taken from, or based on, that out-of-copyright Leo Melitz book - "Schaunard and Colline arrive with a very frugal dinner and all parody eating a plentiful banquet, dance together, and sing" - dear me! I see that the Tosca article comes from the same stable. Do we need some guidelines? The problem is that one size won't fit all - some operas are just more complicated than others. --GuillaumeTell 17:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, about no one-size fits all. I did quite few experiments with L'Orfeide, before coming up with a way to handle it. But Tosca and La bohème, do not have complex plots or structure and are some prime examples where the pruning shears could be usefully applied. Voceditenore (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than pruning, I'd be more inclined to just junk the existing text and start afresh (not that I have the time to do it at present). --GuillaumeTell 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Operas by Composer navboxes

The current operas by composer navboxes for Donizetti and Rossini are driving me nuts. In most cases, they are three times longer than the article. Even when they aren't, they seriously limit the placement of other images and media. As an experiment I've created two alternatives for Donizetti:

1. {{Donizetti operas (collapsible)}} (like the new {{Handel}} navbox) . You can see it "in action" at Sancia di Castiglia
2. {{Donizetti operas (horizontal)}}. You can see it "in action" at Enrico di Borgogna

Opinions? I prefer 1. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

not that I'm a troublemaker, but my vote is for 2. --Smerus (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I also like the horizontal ones. They cope more easily with long opera titles, are unobtrusive and allow much more freedom in formatting the article itself. Here's one I did for Rossini: {{Rossini operas (horizontal)}}. (I temporarily tried it out in Aureliano in Palmira [8].) The only reason I preferred 1. is that it is consistent with the Handel one, and visually similar to the Navboxes for other composers which have relatively few works and aren't in urgent need of re-formatting. I'm not sure how members feel about consistency of style for opera articles. There are currently 151 Operas by composer templates. Is it OK to use some vertical and some horizontal ones until we change them all over? If so, I'd prefer 2. Other candidates for the reformatting into either 1. or 2. are {{Vivaldi operas}}, {{Verdi operas}} {{Rameau operas}}, {{Offenbach operas}}. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like the look of #2 as well, but how about having the section's title appear in the contents box at the top so that people coming to the article will see - if they do not scroll down to read - that there is such as list available?? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, I prefer #1, because it's more prominent and less unobtrusive and, as Voce says, fits better with composers such as Berg (just listening to the ROH Lulu as I type). (Also because I was joint creator of the vertical box and thus have a sentimental attachment to it.) BTW, I feel that Template:German operas has a rather misleading title.... --GuillaumeTell 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think consistency of format across articles is important. I would say it's better for the new navboxes to be vertical, given the number that would have to be changed. GuillaumeTell's point about visibility is also important (1. means no having to make a section heading, or scroll down to find the box.). I've just made a 1. version for Rossini: {{Rossini operas (collapsible)}} and am adding it to the various Rossini opera articles. Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update I've now changed 15 of the longest navboxes to the new vertical collapsible format. See User:Voceditenore/Articles in progress 3 for the complete list. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about template names

Names like Template:Rossini operas (collapsible), Template:Donizetti operas (collapsible) are rather clunky. Should the collapsible vertical navboxes be renamed as simply Template:Rossini, Template:Donizetti, etc.? The new collapsible Handel box is simply called Template:Handel.

Re: Template:German operas. I agree that it's misleading. Perhaps Template: German (Edward) operas or Template:German (Edward) (to be consistent with Template:Handel). What happens if a template is moved to a new name? Do the articles in which they are transcluded have to be changed manually? Voceditenore (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the REDIRECT which will be created automatically when you move the template to a new name will take care of that. However, the parameter |name= within the template needs to be adapted for the "v • d • e" links to function. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Template:Handel is that it covers oratorios and cantatas as well as operas. (Actually, he wrote a lot of other stuff, too!) I'd prefer to keep the word operas - even Donizetti wrote music that isn't opera - but drop the (collapsible). The old navboxes will need to be deleted. --GuillaumeTell 10:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could simply edit the existing ones to show the new template (and redirect Template:Donizetti operas (collapsible) and Template:Rossini operas (collapsible) to the original template titles. This would preserve a copy of the old ones in the history and save having to have them deleted. I've completed (but not uploaded) quite a few of these now. See: User:Voceditenore/Articles in progress 3. I'll try an experiment with Donizetti and see what happens. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I've changed Template:Donizetti operas and Template:Rossini operas to the new vertical but collapsible format. They seem to be working well. The old versions are still in the history, if we collectively change out minds. Voceditenore (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Amilie, or the LoveTest.....

has now featured in DYK - thanks to those who raised it in the first place on this page --Smerus (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources of PD music

In the European Union, copyright on sound recordings lasts 50 years from time of first publication. There is a proposal to up this to 70, which has not passed yet - but which doesn't matter, given we have to respect the Uruguay Roundtable Agreements, which gave the more restrictive American copyright to things still in copyright in 1996.

In short: Provided the underlying composition is PD, everything recorded in the EU before 1946 (1996-50) is Public Domain.

You may begin squeeing at will. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to check that the recordings were not simultaneously released in the US, as was the case with a lot of the RCA and HMV recordings. If so, they may still be in copyright in the US and WP is on US servers. Voceditenore (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no such thing as a copyright for recordings in the United States until 1972. Any copyright is strictly governed by state law alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rufus Wainwright - Prima Donna

Just FYI, Rufus Wainwright's opera, Prima Donna, will premiere at the Manchester International Festival on July 10, 2009. My intention is not to advertise, but to let project members know that there might be quite a bit of press about the opera in the near future, so now is the perfect time to improve the article as much as possible. Following the premiere, the synopsis and reception sections can be added. Perhaps this would make a good collaboration article in the near future? Some expertise from WikiProject Opera members would do a lot of good. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [9]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Macbeth (opera) / Opera Japonica synopses

I'm not entirely happy with the statement at the end of the plot summary that we're using another site's summary with permission, but without said permission being explained. I think, if someone has a libretto, that we'd be wise to rewrite the summary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Several of these synopses were contributed by the same editor, (User:Kleinzach). See for example Talk:I Capuleti e i Montecchi. This was back in 2005/2006 and I'm not sure that the procedure went through as it should have. For example, Talk:I Capuleti e i Montecchi has the required OTRS tag, but doesn't list the OTRS number, while Macbeth doesn't have one at all. In any case, it's not appropriate to have statements like that in the body of the article. They should be inline citations appearing as footnotes. The synopses are very well written, and it would be a pity to replace them and re-invent the wheel. Also, the Macbeth one has since been adapted and added to. But the copyright situation needs to be cleared up for all these synopses, with proper OTRS tags on the talk pages. I'm going to be away for the next two weeks. But I suggest contacting User:Moonriddengirl on her talk page for advice. She's an expert on copyright, an administrator and incredibly helpful. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Here are all the other articles with the Opera Japonica synopses: Don Quichotte, Nabucco, Eugene Onegin (opera), L'italiana in Algeri, Il turco in Italia, La favorite. None of them have OTRS tags. Voceditenore (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate they're well-written, but if we cannot prove the appropriate permission, I think we'd be better working on new ones now, at our leisure, before someone decides to crack down and we have to do everything at once. As well, comparison to the original site will help us pick out any parts we can keep (the information in the plot summary is, of course, free to use, so if it's been rewritten enough, we can keep it.). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP is really cracking on copyright at the moment (and so-called link spamming). He's on a wikibreak at the moment, but it might be good idea to contact User:Kleinzach. He may have a record of the OTRS ticket number(s). If he doesn't and User:Moonriddengirl can't help, then we may well be on borrowed time with those synopses. In the meantime, I'd suggest that someone turn those notices:

This synopsis by Simon Holledge was first published on Opera japonica http://www.operajaponica.org and appears here by permission.

into inline citations. Even if there is OTRS record, notices like that shouldn't be in the body of the article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is any doubt about this, User:Kleinzach is Simon Holledge, who wrote the synopses for Opera Japonica, of which he was the publisher. He therefore had to ask for his own permission to publish his own work here (sounds like the Lord Chancellor's dilemma about asking his own permission to marry his ward in Iolanthe!). It was sorted out to his and, apparently, Wikipedia's satisfaction during his early days here. His end of the dialogue about this is here, and the other end of it is here. --GuillaumeTell 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It may have been "sorted out" back then (I'd checked those exchanges before posting here), but trust me, if someone calls us on those synopses today, and there is no OTRS ticket available for each of them, they are in danger of deletion as copyvio. Times have changed. Voceditenore (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, him being the author helps, of course. But we do need to get him to fiele the appropriate ORTS for all of them. Can someone else do that? It's very clear he hates me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that he has a rather brusque manner, but I rather doubt that he hates you. Anyway, I'll be happy to email him. It was he who suggested to me (some years ago now) that I might consider becoming a Wikipedian and joining the opera project. Meanwhile, I'll contact User:Moonriddengirl and move the "permission" sentences to footnotes if either/both haven't already been done. --GuillaumeTell 10:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! I've found a couple of more synopses that need OTRS tickets. To keep them all in one place, I'll list the entire lot here:

Macbeth (opera), I Capuleti e i Montecchi, Don Quichotte, Nabucco, Eugene Onegin (opera), L'italiana in Algeri, Il turco in Italia, La favorite, Il campiello, Adriana Lecouvreur, Lucia di Lammermoor

As most of the WP articles don't link to the exact page on Opera Japonica where the synopsis appears, here's OJ's synopses page: [10]. The Permissions people may need to see the exact source page as well. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to see that you didn't include Don Carlos, which I revamped extensively and removed the OJ acknowledgement (at Kleinzach's suggestion!). I'm off to a meeting now but will deal with all the above this evening.--GuillaumeTell 15:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

←Good news. :) I've located the OTRS ticket, and it clearly connects the contributor to the site. It is not a permission format we would use these days, but I think this one would plainly be "grandfathered" in since it was accepted in 2005. It is not specific to any article, but rather identifies him as the owner of the site, which means he is free to license the material here. The thing to do at this point is to place the following on the talk pages of articles to which the editor has contributed: {{PermissionOTRS|id=2005110510001389}}. I'll add it to this linked above. If you find anymore, please just drop it on. If he comes off Wikibreak and is open to it, please ask him to get in touch with me, and I'll help him craft a release that is more in keeping with modern licensing language just so we cover all bases. If he doesn't, mind, I think this one will do. It's just not quite as secure as what we go with these days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrific! And many thanks for the prompt response. Opera Japonica isn't a live site any longer, but there may be other synopses there (by other authors) that can now be used here. --GuillaumeTell 23:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The OTRS identifies Kleinzach as the owner of the site. It doesn't give permission for us to take what we want. Only he can move material from there to here unless he files another OTRS opening up the site completely.

In fact, as the OTRS stands, I'd suggest that we had best pair it with a link showing Kleinzach adding the material. It only says he's the owner; to make sure we don't get challenged, we should show him adding the material in. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Copying this here from my talk page (Voceditenore (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)) ...

GT referred me to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Macbeth_.28opera.29. I'm away at the moment, but I'd like to make it clear that I'm in favour of phasing out these Opera Japonica texts and replacing them with 'home-grown' ones. Putting them into the public domain never really worked. If necessary links can be provided to the Oj pages. --Kleinzach 02:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Chris Chamberlin

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Chamberlin (2nd nomination) for members who may wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Giulia Recli

A sub-stub was created on the above title just now, tagged for speedy deletion, and I rescued it and sourced some details as best I could from online sources available to me. I thought mentioning the article here would be appropriate as I am not an opera/composer aficionado and I'm sure members of this project have access to all manner of targeted sources not available online or know where to look better than I ever would as an outsider to the subject matter. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I've bannered the talk page for WikiProject Composers. If you rescue any more like this please bring them here and we can either banner them for our sister projects or our own. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But of course!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)