User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page

still more past topics...

John T. La Barbera‎[edit]

Thank you so much for your thoughtful input on the page. I'm learning, as you can tell. I'd like to share my thinking on the COI issue, just so that you know where I was coming from and you don't attribute nefarious motives to me :}. I should get points for using "nefarious", I think :)

Anyway, I learned about John when I watched him perform & we had a conversation. His life experiences & accomplishments were so interesting that I wanted to offer them for free on my website essenceofitaly.net. I did so by creating podcasts of interviews with him. I don't have a commercial relationship with John; the podcasts and the written transcripts of them are available on my site for free. I like promoting Italian culture and letting people know about accomplished, interesting Italians & Italian-Americans, like John. It was in that spirit that I created his page and added links to the podcasts on my site.

I understand and accept Wiki's policies in this area, so this is not presented as an argument. I just wanted to let you in on my thought process.

I agree with you that it reads like a resume. I'll continue to work on it. Thanks again for your professionalism in pointing out where I need to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure your motives weren't nefarious, and I realize that the podcasts themselves are free. Nevertheless, Essence of Italy is a business that you are a partner in [1], and you added links to a web site that's part of that business. The podcasts have slide shows of photographs that are for sale. You also created a now-deleted article on your business partner Carolyn Masone. That kind of stuff is a real no-no on Wikipedia and best to avoid in the future. For one thing, La Barbera seems notable enough for an article, but if it gets proposed for deletion, having been created by an editor with a conflict of interest will not help - especially if there is a complete lack of proper references that support notability. You must provide references from published, verifiable, reliable sources that show significant coverage of him and and his work (i.e. newspaper, magazine or journal articles and reviews) and that are completely independent of your business and of him. (That may well have been the problem with the Carolyn Masone article as well.) Anyhow, simply linking to the front pages of zillions of web sites of people that La Barbera's been associated with doesn't provide that kind of verification and makes the article look like a link dump, even if that wasn't your intention. So make the addition of proper references to that article a priority. You'll also find these guidelines on notability for musicians very helpful. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos, etc.[edit]

Thanks so much for your hard work. :-) Actually Huberdeau‎ was already on the mainpage a few days ago but thank you for the thought. I'm going to go ahead and nominate Flora Perini, Cesira Ferrani, Giuseppe Cremonini, and Rita Fornia for DYKS. I'll add you to the credits too because of the photos, etc. If you think of any good hooks let me know. Also, I recently did an overhaul of Thomas Arne if you want to take a look at it. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and put up the following DYK noms which I am copy pasting here-

...the Italian mezzo-soprano Flora Perini created the role of the Princess in the original 1918 production of Puccini's Suor Angelica at the Metropolitan Opera? New article self nomNrswanson (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC) credit should also go to user:voceditenore for the great photos[reply]

...that operatic soprano Cesira Ferrani originated two of the most iconic roles in opera history, Mimi in the 1896 world premiere of Giacomo Puccini's La bohème and the title role in Puccini's Manon Lescaut in the original 1893 production? 10 fold expansion, self nom byNrswanson (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Credit should also go to user:voceditenore for the great photo, copy edits, and quotes.[reply]

... that opera superstar Giuseppe Cremonini's career was tragically cut short upon his sudden and unexpected death at the age of 36? new article self nom byNrswanson (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Credit should also go to user:voceditenore for the great photo and copy edits.[reply]

... that although opera singer Rita Fornia began her career as a coloratura soprano, her voice soon lowered and darkened causing her to sing mostly mezzo-soprano roles?

Alt hook... that opera singer Rita Fornia sang in more than 400 performances at the Metropolitan Opera, including the Abbess in the original production of Puccini's Suor Angelica in 1918? New article self byNrswanson (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Credit should also go to user:voceditenore for the great photo.[reply]

If you have any suggestions let me know. Obviously we can't use the fair use images on the main page. But if you find any free ones we could suggest those or if you think of any better hooks let me know. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The hooks seem fine. Brain too fried currently to think up improvements.;-) Have added free images to Giuseppe Cremonini and Cesira Ferrani (their costumes for the world premieres of Manon Lescaut) if that's any help. Have added other stuff to Manon Lescaut too. I'm working on free images for La Boheme and Fanciulla now. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for all the pictures. Rita Fornia got a DYK today. Unfortunately user:borgqueen rejected giving you credit, but I personally feel you deserve it. You might consider nominating Alessandro Polonini.Nrswanson (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Wainwright's Prima Donna - Thank You![edit]

Thank you so much for your assistance with the Prima Donna article. I want the article to be as good as possible, so please continue keeping an eye on it. Thanks again! Whataworld06 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the link you provided (Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats) is very helpful, and I will certainly bookmark this page for future reference. Whataworld06 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to keep an eye on it. Once the opera is actually performed, it will be much easier to go through it and make the text more coherent. One of the major problems with writing about a work which hasn't yet been completed and isn't going to be performed for a long time is that it tends to turn into a news blog and requires constant updating and/or removal of redundant text (and the occasional fancruft). It probably would have been better to put the basic information about the project in Wainwright's article and wait until it was actually performed before devoting a separate Wikipedia article to it. But c'est la vie. In the meantime, I would avoid mentioning "unconfirmed reports" or "unannounced plans" of any aspect of the work, even if you can find a reliable source that reports the "unconfirmed reports" or "unannounced plans". The article should stick to the facts as they are currently known. Saves a lot of rewriting. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I am very much anticipating the opera, though I know it will mean more work on the article, especially if there are additional performances, a CD release, etc. But hopefully we can keep up with the article so it could even reach FAC status some day. Thanks again! Whataworld06 (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles' names[edit]

I have read you have reverted a few article titles I had previously redirected, and I would like very much to catch the criteria you will use in naming articles.

For instance, I have verified there exists an article named "Greta Garbo", and only a redirecting to Greta Garbo if one searches for Greta Lovisa Gustafsson. I also verified there exists another article named "Marilyn Monroe", and not even a redirecting to that article if one searches for Marilyn's baptism name "Norma Jean Baker". Or, furthermore, if we want to stay in the field of opera, I have found an article named "Maria Callas" and not even a redirecting from her baptism name "Sofia Cecelia Kalos".

If all that is true, I do well then wonder why there should be an article named after a thoroughly unknown (an actual Martian) "Manuel del Pópulo Vicente García", and no article named Manuel García, after the way the first protagonist of Almaviva, and Maria Malibran and Pauline Viardot's father used to call himself and to be called during his artistic life; and since he had also a son baptised Manuel Patricio Rodríguez García, but always referred to as Manuel García son, I wonder why there ought not to be an article bearing that name, and why the article related to his father ought not to be renamed "Manuel García father", the exact actual common term which has been in use for almost two centuries to refer to him.

As for Poliuto, since there exist two slightly different operas, Poliuto and Les martyrs, and only one article, named after Poliuto, I had felt perfectly correct to indicate by Poliuto's side also the title of its French version, which now remains without an article of its own (neither does my scarce knowledge about Donizetti allow me to create it myself).

Last, but not least, there comes the article "Tenor altino": this name is a queer mixture of English (tenor) and would-be Italian (altino, which could actually mean "fairly tall" or "not exceedingly tall", but whose meaning, anyway, has nothing at all in common with singing, for in Italy "alto" is not synonymous with contralto). In Wikipedia there already exist two voices and a half which employ both Italian terms ("tenore di grazia", "tenore robusto" and "spinto") and thus, as I had never heard or read of a type of singer named “tenor altino”, whereas in Italy we will certainly say “tenore contraltino” just to mean what Wikipedia calls “tenor altino”, I had thought it was not incorrect, nay opportune, to redirect the article. Of course, I don’t know English very well and if a significant usage of “tenor altino” is reported, your reversion seems, to me too, perfectly justified.

Thank you very much for the attention and best wishes of a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Jeanambr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanambr (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any queries about titles for opera-related articles on the English Wikipedia or want to discuss this further, don't hesitate to bring it up on the Opera Opera Project discussion page. Also, please remember to always leave an edit summary each time you edit an article or talk page and to sign your talk page comments. You will also find explanations of this on the Italian Wikipedia at: it:Aiuto:Oggetto and it:Aiuto:Uso della firma. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my rash move of the article Zaira; for the future I won't make any more move myself: should I feel a move expedient, I will previously ask you or bring it up on the Opera Opera Project discussion page. Ciao. Jeanambr (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct a link to Giuseppe Nicolini[edit]

My article concerning Gaetano Crivelli contains a link to the musician Giuseppe Nicolini, which, in fact, addresses to a different Giuseppe Nicolini that wasn't even a musician. I don't know how to redirect it correctly, could you please help me? Thanks. Con simpatia. Jeanambr (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that another editor has already fixed the Nicolini link for you. I also left a comment on Talk:Gaetano Crivelli concerning La sposa di Granata. I think you may have got the title of the opera wrong. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a happy newyear (about Leyla)[edit]

Hi, I took your warning about Leyla Pınar's picture. The Picture and her official website is belong to us :) There is not any copyright problem for us. If there is a problem about our artist's page I am ready for do what it takes. Thanks best regards

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla_P%C4%B1nar —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRWebmaster (talk • contribs) 11:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm afraid there is still a problem with that photo. Simply because it appeared on Leyla Pınar's official web site doesn't mean that she or you own the copyright to it. (Incidentally, it no longer seems to be anywhere on her site.) When you uploaded it, you claimed that you made that photo yourself and listed Timur Okutman as the photographer. However, the actual photographer appears to be not Timur Okutman but Yavuz Meyveci. The photograph is in the portfolio of his work on his official web site here, and more specifically here You will need to provide an explanation for this at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. You can also seek further guidance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. As for the text of Leyla Pınar, which I removed. It was a copyright violation. Claiming that you own the site is not enough. You need to follow very specific procedures. You have been warned many times about these issues in the past. See [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. If you wish to use the text you must follow one of these procedures:

If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Leyla Pınar with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original web site or author to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for full instructions. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Leyla Pınar with a link to the details.

But please note that text from a web site, even if copied with permission, may be unsuitable for Wikipedia because it is overly promotional or is not written in idiomatic English. In that case, it will be heavily edited by other Wikipedia editors. From your various comments, it's pretty obvious that you have a close personal and professional relationship both with Timur Okutman and Leyla Pınar. As such you have a conflict of interest and need to be especially careful when editing articles related to them. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest very carefully for guidance in editing under these circumstances. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Voceditenore its ok. I changed the picture. I took this new picture with my camera. If I have to add any tag to page, you say me. I add. Thanks for your help and information. I wish a wonderfulyear for you. Best regards. --TRWebmaster (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The new picture is OK if you really did take it. But I see that you have now edited the summary on File:Leylapinar.jpg to give the name of the real photographer, Yavuz Meyveci, but still claim it to be self-made and have still licensed it saying "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0)" Are you now claiming to be Yavuz Meyveci? If you are not him, then it is dishonest to say that it is self-made. "Self made" means you personally took the photograph. It is also dishonest to give away the copyright on someone else's work without their permission. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Voceditenore I am a webmaster of istanbulbarok.com I took Leylapinar.jpg picture from Leyla. Therefore when I was adding this picture to wikipedia I supposed the author is adder or other thing. But also for old picture there was not any problem. If you want you can ask the photographer. I corrected only a mistake with your notice. Because I did not take this old picture (Leylapinar.jpg) with my camera. I could add the older picture to istanbulbarok.com. But it takes more time of me.

Now, I changed the picture and I can give every guarantee for this picture. Thanks again. --TRWebmaster (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is not my job to ask the photographer. Adding it to your web site will make no difference. Owning a copy of a picture does not mean a person owns the copyright to it. Even if you can prove that Leyla Pinar owns the copyright instead of the photographer, that is not enough to be able to upload it to Wikipedia. Please read the steps I told you to take above, and please read the guidelines. In any case, you did not own the copyright at all and did not have the right to give it away. I am now going to seek the advice of an administrator to have the photograph speedily deleted. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)[edit]

On January 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: This was a bot mistake. I had nothing to do with this article. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barawa[edit]

Barawa book awards visit it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpsons lover 909 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 12 March 2009

Louis Danto[edit]

Thanks for looking in on the page, and making some adjustments. I came across Danto's work just recently on the Florida State University's audio archives (check them out from the Danto wiki page). I discovered that his family sold recordings online, and have ended up having continued correspondence with his wife, Rouhama. She has looked at the page I wrote, and has given it her official approval, which is good news. I am hoping to get some allowable photos up there. Voicewisdom (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...in popular culture"[edit]

Hi. I saw you deleted the category "Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture" from the Il ritorno d'Ulisse in Patria article. Quite right too. I was inspired to remove the same tag from Purcell's Dido and Æneas but was reverted with the summary "Of course opera is popular culture". Now, much as I would love that to be true I doubt that 17th century opera qualifies as "popular music". I've looked around Wikipedia and the phrase "in popular culture" seems to be everywhere and to apply to every conceivable work of art or entertainment. For instance, Absinthe in popular culture includes Van Gogh, Picasso, Baudelaire and Rimbaud. I imagine the expression "X in popular culture" has simply become a Wiki-cliché and has been applied in mechanical, bot-like fashion where the phrase "Cultural references to X" would be more appropriate. I remember back in the old days on Wikipedia "X in popular culture" simply meant "References to X in Pokemon". Maybe it's time for a crackdown. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far so good.;-) I see you changed the title of the absinthe one to Cultural references to absinthe. Much better! I wonder... does Rimbaud have a Pokémon card? It would have probably appealed to his sense of the grotesque... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What I liked were: absurd paintings, pictures over doorways, stage sets, carnival backdrops, billboards, bright-colored prints, old-fashioned literature, church Latin, erotic books full of misspellings, the kind of novels our grandmothers read, fairy tales, little children's books, old operas, silly old songs, the naive rhythms of country rimes". (Rimbaud, A Season in Hell). So he would probably have appreciated Wikipedia "cruft".

Apparently there's a whole project dedicated to "in popular culture"!--Folantin (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain to be available to discuss the new CotM over the next fortnight. Best. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist pratella[edit]

Thank you. Great work. Valueyou (talk)

Request for your opinion[edit]

I recently stumbled across this article: Oktavist. I have never heard the term before and in searching through various references found no mention of the term. Are you familiar with it at all?Nrswanson (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help?Nrswanson (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard the term either until I started cyber-sleuthing it today. You learn something new every day on WP. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Opera[edit]

Hi, Do you happy with how the portal looks like now? Am I the only one who thinks that the portal looks “ugly” and so unorganized? I am very angry; I don’t know what to say. I don’t know what to do, say or think! Oh god, what you think we should do? I can’t undo back to the old format and that pissed me off! He has changed everything, it can’t be easy undone! I have cool down. Read the comment I wrote in Portal Opera talkpage, I have been thinking to revert back to the old format and articles, then all of us can discuss and see what we want to go from there. I will only revert if members agree with it. - Jay (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, both I and Shoemaker's Holiday suggested on the Opera Portal talk page that we wait on reversion and discuss it calmly once Cirt had finished. (I suggested this at least twice.) I'm a little surprised that despite this you went ahead and reverted it anyway. It's led to a lot of unnecessary ill-feeling (on both sides) and basically made any kind of organized, rational discussion impossible. So many reverts and counter-reverts were made that no one even had time to consider the pros and cons of a stable version let alone discuss them. If you don't mind, I think I'm going to back away from Portal talk:Opera for the time being. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my reply in the talkpage. To be frank, I'm sick and tired of all this. Do whatever you want to do, Im not part of it anymore - Jay (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Opera Portal redux[edit]

Thank you very much for your kind words of appreciation of the work I put into Portal:Opera. Unfortunately, at this point I think it is best if I take a break from that portal and work on portal-improvement-drives where I know I can actually get those portals to featured quality status. It seems the editors currently active at this portal would rather turn it into the main page of a WikiProject, as opposed to the main page of a portal about the topic. Cirt (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a moment to read over your comment, and I agree with everything that you said. Cirt (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Danish composers[edit]

When you reverted this page, you removed all the parent categories, including a couple which weren't part of the nc edit. I've restored them. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies and thanks for fixing that. I'll be more careful next time, if there ever is one. I imagine articles placed on Category pages are fairly rare occurences - at least I hope so. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of my work here, I encounter it fairly often. But I think it's a rare thing in the grand scheme of things. Thanks for following up. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usual naming problems[edit]

I have translated the article Matteo Babini which I had created in the Italian Wikipedia (with a re-direction from Matteo Babbini): in fact, his baptism name ought to be Matteo Antonio either Babini or Babbini (I am not sure), and I found him cited in every possible combination, once even only Antonio Babini. Could you please arrange things yourself according to the English Wikipedia's guidelines? Many thanks. Jeanambr (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Tony Kaldas[edit]

That's fine with me. If you still think the article should be delete you're of course more than welcome to try WP:AFD. We just have to restore articles deleted via PROD upon request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might take it to AfD sometime next week if there's no improvement. There really is no independent evidence to support the claims of notabilty at the moment. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Thomas Arne[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for letting me know about the work. I am currently only finished cataloging the stage works up through 1770. The stage works between 1771-1776 still need to be added (May-day, or The Little Gipsy is from 1775). Its rather tedious work so I have been doing it in small chunks. There are roughly 20 more stage works to go. All of the other sections are complete. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed the list. There are a few minor edits still needed but all of the works are now there.Nrswanson (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hi, I have dealt with this. Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. An edit was made yesterday after closure [7], by Lederhosen who I suspect is also Angelo Giardini-Naxos, the article's creator. I left it however, as the page will soon be blanked. I'll keep a watch on it though in case someone tries to unblank it. Best wishes, and thanks again. Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now courtesy blanked and {{NOINDEX}} the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have protected the discussion page and the talk page following further comments made by Lederhosen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the whole AFD including his comment immediately following closure is visible here. Does Google index user sub pages? Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Google does index user subpages so I have very quickly added a {{NOINDEX}} to it. I have asked JamesBWatson directly why he has a copy of the AfD page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[8], [9] - Voceditenore (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capilla Flamenca[edit]

Hello Voceditenore, I am preparing an overhaul of Capilla Flamenca's page. As suggested by Wikipedia, I put it on my userpage first (as a subpage [10]. Since you are an experienced wikipedian, I would be very grateful if you could review it before I post it. Many thanks! PrimaVista (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PrimaVista, I just had a quick look at the draft and it looks very good! Much more interesting and informative than the old version. There are a couple of areas that could use some minor improvement, but nothing drastic. I'll leave more detailed comments on your talk page tomorrow, or you could just go ahead and post it, and I can leave my suggestions on the article's talk page. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Voceditenore. I will await your much appreciated comments before posting. PrimaVista (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Anderson[edit]

I've done some work on cleaning up the article on Marian Anderson. Would you mind looking it over and giving me some feedback. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What an improvement! The article is so frequently vandalized that my heart sank whenever I contemplated trying to improve it. There are probably some minor copy-edits to be made. I'll try to check a section a day and do any minor fixes remaining. But all in all, it reads very well now and is so much more informative. All it needs is a Recordings scetion and it would be a clear B class in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appriciate it. :-)Nrswanson (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Portal:Opera - Question[edit]

Very nice job with Portal:Opera/Selected anniversaries/March! To answer your question, yes, it will automatically rotate to the current month on March 1, that's the way I had set it up, at least :( ... And thank you very much for your kind words. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation form Celletti's History of Belcanto[edit]

Dear friend, I beg you to excuse my boring impertinence, but I would dare to ask for your help again. I have enlarged the article “Manuel García (tenor)”, also quoting from Celletti’s History of Belcanto (which you know and whose English version you ought to possess), and, since I am by no means able to correctly translate music specialized phraseology into English, I wonder whether you could be so kind as to rectify my quotation referring it directly to the English edition of the book and accordingly modifying it. The quotation is drawn from : IV [Rossini]. 3 [Tipi vocali rossiniani] - third note of the paragraph. I thank you very much in advance.Jeanambr (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't have a copy of the book at the moment. I've tagged the section as needing copy-editing. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to do it myself right now, but perhaps I can get around to it in a few days, or another editor will see the tag and do it. Also, if you are directly quoting from Celletti, you need to use " " (quotation marks). A direct translation from the original also counts as a direct quotation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Copyright violation on La falena[edit]

See Talk:La falena. It's probably that this is only one of many. Perhaps you would like to discuss this on the Opera Project? If there are many cases of Grove being copied straight into WP it will discredit all the work everybody has been doing. --Klein zach 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike what Kleinzach suggests, this is not a pattern of mine. I did not intend to keep the article in a copywrite violation state. I had to take off prematurely and so I didn't get to editing it right away. My intention was to get back to it first thing once I got back on here. What I should have done was saved it to my sandbox and not put it into mainspace until everything was properly put together. I appologise for my bad judgement today and it won't happen again. On a side note Kleinzach, I cited it directly to Grove which many editors like yourself have access to and would be likely to check. If I wanted to get away with plagiarizing I wouldn't be dumb enough to point to the copied source for people to find it easily. My appologies again.Nrswanson (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach, in future if you find any instances of copypaste or close paraphrasing from any source, please remove it immediately and briefly note the fact on the talk page or the edit summary rather than letting it sit there, or recopying the material to the talk page (which is not supposed to contain copyvio either). It's actually quicker and far safer to simply take out your metaphorical red pencil.;-) In the meantime, I'll post a general reminder about these issues on the OP talk page, or you can do it. The talk page is open to everyone.

Nrswanson, please go back and check all the articles you've created recently that are sourced to Grove. (I don't have access to Grove online or the hardcopy, so I can't do this myself.) You'll find this essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing very helpful. It's written by administrators who are very active in copyright issues, one of whom I've worked with several times in the past. If there is any doubt in your mind that the paraphrasing is too close, or you find instances where you have copy-pasted and forgotten to go back and fix it, remove the entire segment(s) immediately and fix them in a draft on your user pages. It's better to have a stub article than a copyright violation. The latter can bring you, and the whole opera project, into disrepute – even if it only happens through oversight, and even if it only happens occasionally.

Best to you both, Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the Opera Project dealt with this problem. There are too many articles involved for me to check. In any case this is exactly the sort of thing that I left the Opera Project to avoid. IMO there should no copying, pasting and rephrasing done at all - it amounts to plagiarism at best. (See also the discussions on synopses in the Opera Project archives.) --Klein zach 07:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also marked Il re as a 'close paraphrase'. --Klein zach 07:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to check articles, Kleinzach, or to deal with the general problem. I was simply saying that the next time you happen to encounter something you recognize as a copyvio (or plagiarism), just delete it with an edit summary to that effect, and avoid re-posting the copyright material itself on the talk page, if you also choose to comment there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to get involved in an edit/revert war. However if displaying the copyright text on the talk page is itself a violation (which I suppose it could be) then I'll use ellipses. --Klein zach 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to wp:close paraphrasing. I'm going to go through my Watchlist systematically to make sure everything is above board. I don't think there will be too many issues to fix, but better to be safe than sorry. Sorry for causing problems and I will be much more careful in future.Nrswanson (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd appreciate it if you could make this a priority and go through them as soon as possible. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Is there something I can do to help you at User:Voceditenore/Close paraphrase (Grove). I could try and put together a list of articles that I have used Grove for. I'll try and fix things myself of course but I am sure other editors will want to check as well.Nrswanson (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really helpful. Feel free to add them to the list of articles for checking. At the moment the list is just compiled from a Google search on WP articles referencing Grove Online (or at least the first 3 pages of the results). I wanted to spot check, so I could guage how prevalent the problem is, and not just with your articles. I know from personal experience as a university teacher that it's often very hard to "call" close-paraphrasing in general, and especially so in one's own work. A few phrases here or there aren't a serious problem, especially if they're clearly referenced, as you have done. But they need to be fixed as soon as possible to restore credibility to the articles.

Sometimes, the best solution is just to use quote marks for a brief but telling phrase, and to make sure that the author is also attributed in the text itself, e.g. "as so-and-so writes" or "according to so-and-so" - especially for material pertaining to critical judgement or analysis of a work. Otherwise what is essentially a subjective judgement (no matter how scholarly) is presented as objective truth. Obviously, in a synopsis the order is going to be the same because the events happen chronologically. The same is true for biography articles. That doesn't constitute close paraphrasing in itself. But special care has to be taken with any kind of musical commentary or critical appraisal appearing in synopses or bios. "When in doubt, leave it out" is a good rule of thumb in these cases, especially for editors dealing with these issues for the first time.

I'm shortly going to Italy for a few days, and when I get back, I'll be changing over to a new computer, so it might be a week or so before I can get back to the list. In the meantime, have a go at fixing the ones you've written where you think they might be a problem. I can then look them over, and give you some feedback, or feel free to ask another editor to. It's not a skill people can learn overnight, so don't get discouraged. ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and I appriciate you not ripping my head off about it either. I'm actually finding this to be a very useful exercize. Your corrections on a few of my articles have pointed to weaknesses in my own editing which I can improve upon. I'll start compiling a list at my sandbox rather than edit your page directly. That way you can organize how you want to tackle things at User:Voceditenore/Close paraphrase (Grove) in a way that suits you best.Nrswanson (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina (opera)[edit]

Thanks for your helpful message left on Shoemaker's Holiday's talkpage. The elusive book is Dean & Knapp Vol 1 dealing with Handel's early operas. I have found material from the book on the web, and have incorporated it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible composer navboxes[edit]

This'll probably need some more work, but could you try out the following template for composer navboxes, and tell me if problems come up? It should - if I get it right - make making these templates much easier: {{Composer navbox}} I'll work to add any and all features necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Danby[edit]

From Sellypaws: Voceditenore - Many thanks for your messages re Sarah Fox and Graeme Danby; but, as I wrote the source text in both instances, I doubt that there should be much of an issue in terms of copyright. I would be grateful if they could revert to what they were previously. I have removed the link to the Albion biography for Sarah Fox, as it is now over two years old. Many thanks. Dominic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellypaws (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two (maybe three) issues here. The text I removed was overly promotional/unencyclopedic in tone and should be phrased more neutrally, as it is now, at least in the Graeme Danby article. The Sarah Fox one is still quite like an advertisement. See WP:PEA for what I mean. The articles also lack references to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I added a couple but they need more. See WP:RELY for guidance as to what's required. Secondly, whether you wrote the text or not, if it has been previously published on copyright web site, you cannot simply paste it here. You need to go through certain procedures. Read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more about this. But you also need to remember that promotional material or artists' bios written for press releases or programme notes invariably have to be toned down for an encyclopedia article, and can rarely be used "straight". Which brings me to another issue. If you have written the copy and are connected in any way, personally or professionally, with these singers, you need to read WP:COI for guidance when editing under these circumstances. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: New users probably aren't used to checking someone else's talkpage for replies - you might want to respond there as well. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know they aren't. That's why I also left him an even longer message on his talk page + a {{talkback}} that same day. See User talk:Sellypaws. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...How did I miss that? I even went over there to look! Ugh, need coffee. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Brey‎[edit]

Someone just speedied this stub I just created. I would appriciate your input.Nrswanson (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help.Nrswanson (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal talk:Opera[edit]

I've responded to you there. Short answer: Great work so far, there's two more FPs to use (File:John Phillip Sousa - De Wolf Hopper - El Capitan1.png, File:Maritana - Nov 22 1845 Illustrated London News.png), but The Sorcerer and The Pirates of Penzance are just B-class, and if there's worries about G&S dominating too much, we can easily delay adding them for now: By the time they're GA or FA, we should have hopefully increased the number of GAs and FAs within the rest of the operatic field. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Portal:Opera[edit]

Hi Cirt, First, a technical question. The images from the following "selected articles" show up fine on the archive page. But when they are rotated into the portal, the bottom half of the image disappears:

Is there something I can do fix this? Second, could I take you up on your offer to create a "New Content" section. More about it here + the updates/expansions I've done recently. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(above comment copied from User talk:Cirt to keep the conversation together. Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If you feel my changes would now be welcome at the portal I would be willing to reconsider helping to further improve it in-line with these ideas. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both I and Shoemaker's Holiday would very much welcome it. We are the only ones who have contributed to the portal since its reformat. The editor who originally started the portal, reverted everything to your version before "leaving" in February. He has said in several places that he will have nothing more to do with the portal and hasn't edited at all on Wikipedia since that time. I've also left a note on the Opera Project talk page. I'll let you know if I get any feedback, but I've made it clear that no feedback = no objection. I hope you do reconsider, but I certainly wouldn't blame you if you'd rather not. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is as you say and there is a more welcome atmosphere for me to help improve the quality of the portal then I will get back into it. Thank you for reaching out to me, I really appreciate it. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on Yamaha Artist Services, Inc.[edit]

Your input on my Yamaha article is well-taken. I'm not attempting to do anything more than illustrate what this department has done. It is a known Public Assembly Venue and has a city permit as such. I'd be very interested to see how this piece can be rebuilt to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Just the same, I have to protest the presence of the very self-serving article on Steinway (a principal competitor) which seems very much to cross the line of Wiki-propriety.

--Jamesmarcus (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why Steinway is an acceptable "encyclopedia" article. The article is a historical overview infused with propaganda. I really want to know why this remains in your (our) encyclopedia, when my rather banal article is seen as pure publicity.

The YASI article is one I re-wrote. It could certainly stand any number of re-writes, but it is not cutting and pasting, to any knowledge of mine. It'd be easy enough to write an entirely new article, straight from facts. Would this, too, be accused of a variant of plagiarism, on account of the topic? You must be fair in your editorial prowess ever as much as I must adhere to guidelines. But frankly, your ruling on this seems partially arbitrary.

My article on Disklavier (modified by others and killed once, because "editors" chose to copy material) is an article about about a product which has entered the common nomenclature. It's been peacefully allowed to represent that product until this recent purge. In the case of Yamaha Artist Services, Inc. I'd like you to explain what is being marketed. It is a known classical music venue and prized by artists. Please be clear about this claim, and please contrast it to Steinway. Explain why that is not a commercial. --Jamesmarcus (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made further comments on the problems with the articles on Talk:Yamaha Artist Services, Inc. and Talk:Disklavier. The articles came up, because the opera project subscribes to a Bot which alerts us to new articles related to classical music and opera. As for Steinway, peacockery, unsupported claims, and unencyclopedic, promotional tone are also unacceptable, as several editors have repeatedly pointed out at Talk:Steinway & Sons. From your contributions to Wikipedia, apart from a few very minor copy-edits and additons, they primarily consist of creating and editing Yamaha Artist Services, Inc.; creating (Yamaha) Disklavier and adding a huge chunk of PR to the neutrally worded article re-created by another editor;[11]] linking to Yamaha Artist, in multiple artist biographies, e.g. [12], [13]; and adding an irrelevant external link to a Yamaha corporate web site at Brooklyn Academy of Music.[14]. All of which suggests a possible personal or professional relationship with Yamaha and a conflict of interest on your part.

As I said on the talk pages of the articles in question, they have no reliable, sources, independent of their subject and stand out a mile to any neutral observer as a piece of coporate PR inserted into Wikipedia, regardless of whether it was intentional. And, as other editors have also pointed out at the Steinway article, the promotional, unencyclopedic tone and lack of referencing from neutral reliable sources actually does the company a great disservice and is counter-productive to their corporate aims. I've recorded the problems on the article talk pages, and do not intend to further edit the articles. Whether or not you remedy the situation (apart from summarily removing the maintenece tags from the article) is up to you. Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Voice of Tenor, my quest, whether or not it is exonerated by the result, is for verity and integrity. I don't mind ripping down both pieces (for re-writes), but I do believe both have a place on Wikipedia. I notice another article from one of our sister offices Yamaha Corporate Artist Affairs which also seems to play out like a pamphlet or brochure. However, as in the case of Steinway & Sons, if Yamaha is being held to a higher standard (assuming that Steinway's "article" stays as is), might that not be a double standard? I thank you for your attention and critique and will do my best to improve the situation. I was, merely, noting what was already permitted on the site. My mistake.

--Jamesmarcus (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I did not say Yamaha shouldn't have its article(s). I said the articles should not be the unreferenced PR exercises they are now. Secondly, Yamaha is not being held to a higher standard than Steinway at all. Read Talk:Steinway & Sons carefully, and this discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I would have thought you'd want the Yamaha articles to do the company justice and not reflect poorly on it as they do now. If your "quest for verity and integrity" boils down to Steinway have their PR so Yamaha should too, there's not much more to say. If you're serious about it, then get advice and help from experienced neutral editors either at WikiProject Classical music or from the editors who have contributed to On-going POV problems and RFC regarding promotional content and tone on the Steinway talk page. You can certainly make a start by properly referencing the articles to verifiable, reliable, independent sources. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also said above: "...another article from one of our sister offices..." (my bolding). In the interest of integrity and in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, you should declare your relationshp with Yamaha on the articles' talk pages. And once again, I strongly urge you to both read and follow the COI guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have already begun re-writing the Yamaha Artist Services, Inc. article, with verifiable references. I will visit the Steinway discussion. I understand your points. I only know what is still displayed on the en.wikipedia.org, hence my reaction to it. So long as this process moves in a forward direction, giving the two Yamaha articles mentioned their proper representation for both the company and the products themselves, I have no problem.
Yes - YCAA is a subsidiary of the same Yamaha Corporation of America as is YASI. I think, so long its references are verifiable, however, an article has a place stand - no matter who authors it. Otherwise, if one must wait for a third party to author articles about something about which he or she may already be an expert, the wait may be long. Is there an alternative? I will study the suggested material.

--Jamesmarcus (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Fowler[edit]

Hi. You put the opera project banner on this article, but she didn't sing any grand opera, and most of her career wasn't even in musicals. It should probably come under the Theatre Project or some sub-project. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered about that, but I thought I better slap something on it and do a bit of categorizing etc. before the deletion police descended on it. Those Vicotrian actor/singer articles were coming a mile a minute. Have switched the banner to the theatre project. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's a new editor who threw a lot of Victorian photos up with articles that said only: "So-and-so (date), an actor". I've tried to rescue some of them. The photos are nice, and most of the actors are likely notable, but it's a lot of work to rescue the articles on short notice! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help and good work to save these articles and to fix related links, etc. I'm still struggling to satisfy peer review comments on H.M.S. Pinafore and hope to bring it to FAC in the next few weeks. If you are able to help satisfy any of Awadewit's comments, your help would be much appreciated! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dread checking this every day. ;-). I think from now on, I'll just stick to the articles that might be about opera singers and let the chips fall where they may with others. Re Pinafore, I'm not at all familiar with the literature, and up to my eyeballs at the moment with OP stuff, so can't be much help there, I'm afraid. I hope you can find someone to help! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth Choir of Great Britain[edit]

You left a note at Talk:National_Youth_Choir_of_Great_Britain stating you would merge all these various articles, including, I suppose, National Youth Training Choirs of Great Britain and National Youth Choirs of Great Britain (are there more?). Would you like to do so now so I won't have to? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd forgotten all about those little beauties. I've merged them today at your suggestion and have removed some of the most blatant peacockery. But it could also use more clean-up. In the process, I also found this rather obvious piece of PR, Michael C. Brewer, (created by the same COI editor) and have fact-tagged it all over the place. I don't think there are any more (some may have already been deleted). I suspect there are now several redirects from redirects,[15] but the bots will have to sort them out. I haven't got a clue about how to do it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited his screed to remove the POV, but it still needs sources. Also did some work on the disambiguation page for Laudibus. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Caruana[edit]

I've reverted to a version that seems the best, and I've added a comment to the ANI section. I suggest that for we try to keep it at that version or something similar, but I believe you are knowledgeable about opera and of course I'd be very pleased if you could improve the article further. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it's OK now. You dealt with the red links much more efficiently than I could have. Great work. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Signpost interview[edit]

Hi there Voceditenore. I'm doing an interview about a WikiProject you are involved in - WikiProject Opera - and would like if you could contribute with an interview. If you would be willing to help, please answer the questions set out here. Thanks in advance! GARDEN 22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As you can see, I've dutifully done so. ;-). I assumed you wanted me to answer all the questions apart from those specifically addressed to Folantin and Shoemaker's Holiday. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! GARDEN 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it up for publishing now. Thanks for your help! GARDEN 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I shall. Cheers, GARDEN 09:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opera[edit]

Good month for opera, really: Interviews in the Signpost, a probable Featured portal, H.M.S. Pinafore about to hit FAC, and the Purcell push begins. Oh, and I think I've found a Falstaff FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Flower[edit]

Feel free to nominate it, however, I myself am boycotting FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) [response to [16]][reply]

I had a look at the talk pages over there. Cripes! I think I'll give it a miss, until they sort themselves out. Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've added it to the list. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_7.