Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 100

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95 ← Archive 98 Archive 99 Archive 100 Archive 101 Archive 102 → Archive 105
Archives Table of Contents

Centralized Discussions of possible interest

For members' information...

Closed:

Closed but interesting discussion on the relevant weight of WikiProject Guidelines vs Wikipedia site-wide style guidelines:

Another closed (but rather inconclusive) discussion:

… although a new shortcut was created (WP:ITALICTITLE) and the guidelines were changed.

Voceditenore (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Updated Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) /Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gianni Schicchi – Featured Article discussion

Gianni Schicchi is now a Featured Article candidate. Members may wish to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gianni Schicchi/archive1. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Input on the nabox image issue at Talk:Gianni_Schicchi#Images would also be helpful, especially from members who are familiar with template coding. Voceditenore (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, Gianni Schicchi is now a Featured Article. The excellent team of Brianboulton and Wehwalt have greatly improved the article over quite a short period of time, and have been very receptive to comments from Opera Project members. Here's to their next operatic collaboration! --GuillaumeTell 16:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for another excellent FA addition! Congrats!4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
From me too! I've now added to the Portal:Opera rotation. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of West Sussex Opera

The article West Sussex Opera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Founded in 2010, this local company does not meet WP:ORG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes for Canadians

I noticed that Argolin (talk · contribs) recently added the banner {{WikiProject Canada}} for the WikiProject Canadian music to a lot of articles which already had the banner {{WikiProject Opera}}. Doing so, s/he added the parameter |needs-infobox=yes to that banner, which to me seems to contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Infoboxes. Here are two typical edits of that editing sequence: one for Nancy Argenta, another for Jon Vickers. There are currently 82 articles listed at Category:Opera articles needing infoboxes. Does the project want to modify the banner on all those articles, should the editor be asked to revert the addition of this parameter, or should the parameter be removed from the banner itself, thus depopulating that category? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest removing the parameter from the banner. If other projects want to use the parameter on their templates, fine, but given the OP's guidelines on this, it's silly for us to have one. We need an adminstrator to do it though, the template is locked. If others are in agreement, I'll ask Antandrus or Moreschi to do it for us. In the meantime, I've been gradually doing them by hand just to see if these articles actually belong with this project (a lot of them were totally unknown to me), and in the process I've discovered some that are right little horrors. Not to mention massive banner overkill on the talk pages. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm certainly in agreement. Thanks for investigating this (and thanks to Michael B for noticing it in the first place). --GuillaumeTell 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. If no one pops up to object in the next 24 hours, I'm going to ask an admin to remove the parameter. Going once... going twice... Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Done! Antandrus (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Paola Lazzarini

This article is up for deletion. It was obviously created by a non-English speaker. I'm not sure if it is worth rescuing or not. The singer does list some notable roles and claims to have sung at the Arena di Verona Festival. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I added sources and cleaned it up, but I suspect this is a pretty non-notable singer who now teaches in a provincial conservatory and gives occasional semi-private concerts. She was only in in the Arena di Verona chorus, the opera roles do not specify where (this is usually a tactic when they were performed in student productions), ditto the choral works and no indication that she was a soloist as opposed to a simple member of the chorus. I'll probably take it to AfD unless I can find any coverage of her or refererences for where she sang the opera roles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Viva Verdi?

I'm not sure what sort of brief descriptions I expected from the List_of_major_opera_composers. A couple of sentences justifying their notability, names of a few key works, ... perhaps something to pick out the top three or five most significant composers in the list? If I was going to summarise the significance and impact of Verdi in three lines, one of them would not have been: Mocked by critics during his lifetime and even today as melodramatic, Verdi's operas today dominate the world's stages.

I immediately assumed vandalism, and was about to improve that first phrase out of existence, but (if I am reading the history log correctly) the entry has been like that since at least 2006(!). This minority viewpoint is strongly at odds with general opinion, and I feel that the inclusion of this phrasing reflects badly on WP.

A sweep of one-line summaries of Verdi in random books on my shelves yields: Italian composer, by common consent recognized as the greatest Italian musical dramatist (Grove); actually, I shall stop there, as this so strongly contradicts the WP entry. I'll shortly take that phrase out of the list, but I'd like to know why it was there in the first place, and for so long ... Scarabocchio (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This article was created a long time ago (in Wikiyears) and a lot of effort went into deciding which composers should be on the list (in order to provide a Neutral Point of View rather than individuals' personal preferences) and how the list should be arranged. My recollection, as a fairly-late-comer to the process, is that, once all that had been sorted out, the descriptions were added fairly quickly by a small number of editors, the list was put up as a Featured List Candidate and it was promoted fairly quickly. You should note that all of the descriptions come from Reliable published sources, and, if you wish to improve the one for Verdi, you need to supply a suitable reference to supplement or replace the current one. I'd suggest that you try out your proposed revision(s) on Talk:List of major opera composers before replacing the existing quote.
(I might add that the List of important operas, in which I played a somewhat larger part, was also awarded Featured List status, with descriptions that were also added in double-quick time and have a number of similar problems.) Hope this helps. --GuillaumeTell 16:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
What GT says. None of the descriptions are set in stone and you - or anyone else - are free to change them, providing you back those changes with references to reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to opera cats

User:Neddyseagoon has recently created several new sub-categories for Category:Countertenors, none of which I think are useful. He has created Category:Countertenors by nationality and then several sub-cats of that. He has also made the odd choice of doing sub-categories of individual nationalities; for example Category:Belgian countertenors has the sub-cat Category:Belgian operatic countertenors. Since nearly all countertenors with sufficient notability for a wikipedia article sing opera this seems rather silly. Of more concern is the changes to the opera singer category scheme. We have the cats for opera singers by voice type and opera singers by nationalilty but not a combo of the two. Are we now going to have a ton of new opera cats? (ie Category:Italian operatic sopranos, Category:French operatic tenors, etc.) I don't think this is necessary. The system we have is a good one and I see no reason to make these sort of additions. What all do you think?4meter4 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Such overly fine categorisation makes navigating the category tree much more difficult for readers. I'm pretty sure there is a guideline somewhere which restricts the use of combinatorial categories. The obvious argument against those is that there is no clear way to determine whether it should be Category:Italian operatic sopranos or Category:Operatic sopranos from Italy. And besides, as we all know, attaching a nationality to many past opera singers is fraught with uncertainty. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
See WP:OVERCAT. --Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree per all of the above. WP:CFD (where a hot topic is Category:Pig breeds of Kazakhstan, gosh!), anyone? --GuillaumeTell 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
PS I agree this is overcategorization. Soemtimes people forget that categories are meant to help the reader. If they don't know the nationality they're looking for, they have to click on every single sub-cat to get the complete picture. Plus as Michael Bednarek pointed out nationality is often a fraight issue with singers especially, pre-1950. Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Per the consensus above I have gone ahead and de-populated the new cats created by Neddyseagoon. Once they are empty for 4 days they are elligible for speedy deletion.4meter4 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Done -- I deleted them all as requested. Thanks to 4meter4 for notifying me -- I have this page on my watchlist but missed this thread. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome, and thank you for taking care of this mess! :-)4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard Arman

This unreferenced blp article on a notable conductor is up for speedy deletion. It is worth rescuing if someone cares to do so. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be rescued for now (4 refs added), but improvement of the opera section is desirable. (I added Bach, of course..) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

February CoM and OoM

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles.
The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles.

I'm tempted to hold the January CoM and OoM over for another month (replacing Tutti in maschera (now created) in CoM with another opera, perhaps for Thea Musgrave (another "orphaned" composer). Any other suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How about these notable February birthdays:
What do you all think?4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In the absence of further comments/suggestions, I've filled in the the February ones with 4meter4's suggestion for CoM and have held over the January OoM. Voceditenore (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Role tables in Mozart and Rossini operas

The role tables are a bit of a mish-mash between what is written in the original libretto/score and modern performance practice. Neither the terms mezzo-soprano or baritone existed then and were always specified as soprano (or contralto) and bass. This is especially true of The Marriage of Figaro, The Barber of Seville, and Così fan tutte. We have a very determined edit-warring IP who keeps to changing these but of course, adds no references. I've now added some, but I personally think we need to clarify what we do in cases of operas that were composed before the mezzo/baritone voice categories existed and actually clarify the difference between the original libretto descriptions and performance practice in a prose paragraph under the role table, referenced to reliable sources. Comments? (I've left a message on the IP's talk page to join the dicussion here). Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a solid policy on this is needed: a straightforward way of saying (a) original specification (b) standard modern-day practice. eg. Count in Figaro: '"Bass" - now usually a baritone'. Suggestions for the most elegant way of expressing this. I do not think footnotes are adequate to the task. almost-instinct 11:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the roles table itself should reflect the score, as this is the most objective approach. Then a prose paragraph below the table can address actual casting practices. If there is only one or two problematic roles a footnote may be preferable over a prose paragraph.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
In my measy opinion, in most instances an making estimation of current practice as objective as the score's prescription should be possible. Wikipedia needs to be both useful and accurate, which means facing up to nebulous issues, instead of trying to push them to one side (this is also just my measy opinion) almost-instinct 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. If various sources describe roles differently, or if casting choices varry widely (Rosina and Carmen being two roles that immediately come to mind) then everything becomes incredibly subjective when it comes to providing a voice type in a table. And including all the voice types in the table is not a good solution because many classical music enthusiasts insist that anything varrying from the score is a perversion of the composer's intentions. We need something objective for the table to avoid the inevitable edit warring which spawned this conversation in the first place. There's also all the arguements over sub-types. Is the Queen of the Night a Lyric coloratura or dramatic coloratura role, etc. Using the score by the composer achieves an objective and fair approach which will prevent time wasting edit wars. A prose paragraph addressing casting practices can easily be added below the roles table. Footnotes may also work well in some articles. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think its the only one that can feasibly avoid future conflicts.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about fach at all, merely voice type. But this is easy: Character X, originally designated "Contralto", now usually cast as Mezzo or Soprano; where there is ambiguity we can report it. Operas exist both as things created at a specific time, and also as part of a living tradition; reporting the latter does nothing to disturb the information given about the former. almost-instinct 21:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly agree that we should stick to our policy of not including sub-types in role tables and that we should show the voice-type specified in the score. I'm a bit dubious about a prose paragraph (which may not be read) below the roles table as an alternative to footnotes (which are located in the table and less easy to ignore). Is a prose paragraph above the roles table a possibility?
I might add that the problem isn't confined to operas premiered before ~1830 or thereabouts (and Don Giovanni should be added to the list above) - Melot in Tristan und Isolde, the Witch in Hänsel und Gretel, Octavian in Der Rosenkavalier and the Composer in Ariadne auf Naxos also spring to mind, and then there's Die Fledermaus. --GuillaumeTell 22:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with 4meter4. @Almost-instinct: Phrases like "now usually cast as" invite mischief and are rightly verboten. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Please quote the line in MOS which forbids them? Thanks almost-instinct 09:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is inconsistency in the current role tables themselves. The other is how best to convey information about modern performance practice to the reader and hopefully inhibit random people monkeying around with the role tables.

1. The terms "baritone" and "mezzo-soprano" did not exist in the days of Mozart and Rossini, and will not be found in the original scores. Women's roles were labelled were either "contralto" or "soprano". Men's were either "bass" or "tenor". In reality, many of the "sopranos", based on contemporary decriptions of their voices and on their repertoire, were what would be called mezzos today. Likewise, some of the tenors had voices closer to today's baritone, as did many basses. So if we keep to the original descriptions in these operas, then terms like "baritone" and "mezzo-soprano" should be removed from the role tables. The original specification for Count Almaviva was "bass", ditto the title role of Don Giovanni, Guglielmo in Così, Figaro in The Barber of Seville, etc. Dorabella in Così was '"soprano", as was Zulma in L'italiana and Marcellina in Marriage of Figaro (all currently listed in the role tables as "mezzo-soprano"). Malcom in La donna del lago was simply "contralto" (the role table for this one currently says "contralto or mezzo-soprano")

2. If they're operas (especially frequently performed ones) where today such roles are normally assigned to mezzos/baritones, the passing reader is going to be surprised, assume it's an error, not read the footnote, and "fix" it. In those cases I think it's better to have a prose paragraph before the role table explaining that these were the original designations but what casting practice is now and why, referenced to a reliable source including page number. Often times the same reference can be used for multiple operas.

My 2¢ which turned out to be $2 ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Is there yet a prefacing paragraph in existence which we could as a model? almost-instinct 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I think voced's $2 wins the bid. :-) That seems like the best solution to avoid drive-by editing and communicate the content with the required accuracy and subtlety.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Today, after the umpteenth drive-by change by the same IP (despite the footnote!), I have restored the table to the original role designations and added an introductory paragraph. See The Marriage of Figaro#Roles. It's referenced to multiple sources which apply many other Mozart and Rossini roles and can be adapted for other articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A lovely addition :-) almost-instinct 13:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! Markhh (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Fertitta

This article has already been deleted once through a PROD but was re-created. It may not be notable, and if so, should be nominated for an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. There is absolutely nothing on him anywhere in reliable independent sources. The roles he "premiered" were 10 minute snatches in a non-notable competition for new operas [1] in a work by by a non-notable composer. The article has an impressive deletion log. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Fertitta.4meter4 (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful if some other project members would chime in here, as this debate has now been re-listed twice.4meter4 (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Marriage of Figaro?

Talking so much about original role tables of The Marriage of Figaro, isn't it about time to give the opera its original title Le nozze di Figaro, considering that major opera houses worldwide produce it in Italian? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See here. Le nozze di Figaro redirects (as do other forms of captialization of the Italian title). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but this wasn't new to me. I don't see, however, why the roles are kept authentic but the name of the piece is not, while it is Serse although that opera is known as Xerxes, to give just one example. Back to nozze, I think that by now the opera may be known better (!) under its original title, and think that should also be considered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In many respects I agree with you, Gerda, and if it were up to me, I'd probably change it. But when a work has a very well-known English title, English Wikipedia (at large) prefers the English. From a purely tactical view, changing this and the few others like it, could raise a lot of hackles at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Some of the folks there can get very irate, march over here, and start arguing their (and our) heads off. Does anyone here remember the 2008 Boheme Brouhaha? The OP "won" the war of attrition, but what a massive time-sink! Here are some comparisons:
Google News
  • "Marriage of Figaro" 25,400 vs. "nozze di Figaro" 7590
  • "The Magic Flute" 21,100 vs."Die Zauberflöte" 2010
Google Books (English language books only. More evenly divided in the case of Marriage of Figaro, but a clear majority for Magic Flute):
Of course, a strong argument is what major reference works use as the primary title. There, the original titles would predominate. As a blast from from the past, here's the original OP discussion in 2005 that led to using English titles for some operas. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Voceditenore. There are a handful of famous operas which are commonly known by their English titles in the English-speaking world and The Marriage of Figaro is one of them. So, per Wikipedia naming policy, it should stay where it is. --Folantin (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I also agree, and I'd go further and say that Die Entführung aus dem Serail is better known in English by either its Italian title, Il Seraglio, or its English one, The Abduction from the Harem/Seraglio. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This has been gone into before, see here. There's no point in retitling the article Il Seraglio - we need to use either the original title or an English-language one, and anyway I think that Il Seraglio is on the way out in English-speaking countries (except possibly in the USA where opera=Italian opera). And I don't think that either of the Abduction ... formulations is used much. --GuillaumeTell 11:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I too agree with Voced's comments. I also think that Die Entführung aus dem Serail should be moved to The Abduction from the Seraglio (sometimes Harem but less so), which at least in the USA is pretty much what it is usually referred to as. I've never seen it advertised in the US with it's German or Italian title. Likewise The Makropulos Affair (opera) should really be The Makropulos Case since that is the name used for the productions at all the major opera houses in the English speaking world. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
In my neck of the english-speaking woods its refered to as "Entführung" almost-instinct 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Eyes please: L'Orfeo (Featured article)

See the section Spurious "Performance history" additions on Talk:L'Orfeo. I have now twice reverted this spectacularly unhelpful Italian IP (79.39.119.34). Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has now been semi-protected for a week after their third attempt to add the material. In general, it would be a good idea for as many members as possible to keep the pages in Portal:Opera/Featured content on their watchlists. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a glance at a couple of other contributions by the above IP. The Verdi Requiem looked OK on a cursory inspection, but the following contribution to Faust discography looks entirely made up (if Google and operadis are to be believed, and even if you ignore the catalogue number, which seems to be a telephone number in Virginia):
Year Cast
(Faust,
Mephistopheles,
Marguerite) 		Conductor,
Opera House and Orchestra 		Label
1979 José Carreras,
Justino Diaz,
Katia Ricciarelli 		Herbert von Karajan,
Berlin Philharmonic, Berlin State Opera Chorus, Paris Opera Chorus 		Audio CD: Deutsche Grammophon,
Cat: 578 3374

It looks to me as if this user is either a joker who is just playing around, or someone who has some sort of grudge, or a journalist who wants to show what rubbish can stay undetected in Wikipedia. An indefinite block seems to be called for. --GuillaumeTell 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we could get an indef block on an IP unless it is linked to one particular person/computer. The behaviour is quite strange, perhaps deliberately so? Some of the discog additions were correct (Werther and at least one of the Verdi Requiem ones). Others were completely spurious e.g. Faust and Godunov. And the stuff added to L'Orfeo was very bizarre, I suggest we check Special:Contributions/79.39.119.34 on a daily basis and just quietly revert until he/she gets tired of it. Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, someone in Serbia has been adding days of the week to the dates of Mozart premieres. It's possible that these are accurate but equally possible that they aren't. I didn't feel like finding out and just reverted them all - see the diffs here. --GuillaumeTell 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I did check them, and they were all correct. Still, unless the day of the week of the premiere had a special significance, it doesn't need to be in the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's quite obvious it's a troll now. This [2] is its response to the discussion. We should ask an admin to deal with the IP. --Folantin (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left a final warning on User talk:79.39.119.34. Two other editors have also attempted to explain to him/her what the problem is and invited discussion. If they keep it up, I think we could bring it to AN/I, but be prepared for them not to block an IP for very long (or at all) if it's got multiple users. The vandalism wouldn't be considered serious enough, just annoying. Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yet another attempt to insert ridiculous Performance History items into Don Giovanni. I've asked Antandrus if a block might be possible. --GuillaumeTell 12:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Antandrus has blocked him/her for a week. But it's a good idea to keep the pages they've been adding the hoax stuff to on watchlists in case they come back in another guise. Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC

AfD: Michael Hancock-Child

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hancock-Child. Voceditenore (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-Il

'Kim wrote six full operas in two years, "all of which are better than any in the history of music," according to his official biography'. (Daily Telegraph 31.1.2011). Does this qualify him for the project? --Smerus (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Er... I think he has quite enough banners in his talk page already. ;-) (By the way, the link doesn't work, but I'd read that somewhere too.) However, if someone writes an article on one of his operatic capolavori.... Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops - here is the right link so you can stand in awe of his many other acheivements as well.--Smerus (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
We only deal with operas in the ideologically unsound Western classical tradition, I'm afraid. Juche opera is far beyond our limited abilities and, imperialist running dogs that we are, we would only sully the majesty of this supreme art form were we to attempt to describe it. For the same reason, the operatic masterpieces of Madame Mao, such as Red Detachment of Women, are above and beyond the scope of this reactionary project. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you may jest, imperialist running dog that you are, but alas, there are two of these little beauties already on Wikipedia, The Flower Girl and... er... Sea of Blood. Apparently Pop Kim, aka Kim Il-sung, wrote the words and Baby Kim, aka Kim Jong-Il, turned 'em into "operas". And the OP banner is on both! Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
But is this type of music really within our remit, or is it more like traditional Chinese opera, which isn't (it's only "opera" by analogy)? --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't, and imperialist running dog that I am, I'm going to remove the OP banners and leave them with the WikiProject Theatre folk. Voceditenore (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe someone should start WikiProject:Dictator kitsch which could cover this as well as Hitler's paintings and Saddam Hussein's romantic novels. --Folantin (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention Mussolini's poems and Colonel Gaddafi's short stories (best sellers in Egypt, apparently). I think you're on to something. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you actually get that going, I shall be rather sorry that I started this.....--Smerus (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Contessa, perdono

Connected to above, an example: I read in the local paper in German about Christiane Kohl in 2011: "danach die Contessa in „Figaros Hochzeit“ in Klagenfurt und anschließend „Die verkaufte Braut“ an der Komischen Oper in Berlin – und dann geht es wieder nach Bayreuth für den Sommer." (ref 2) I put that now, as requested above, as "The Countess in Le nozze di Figaro". But then I wonder about Mařenka in the same sentence (started not by me). Even more I wonder how a reader not familiar with the topic will make the connection from Figaros Hochzeit to the opera, Mozart not being mentioned.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow this or see what the problem is. Mařenka is in the role table of The Bartered Bride linked in the article. Figaros Hochzeit and Die verkaufte Braut don't appear anywhere in the WP article. If an English reader decides to check the references, they will either already know German or will use the Google translation of the Idsteiner Zeitung article which, as you can see, gives "Marriage of Figaro" and "The Bartered Bride" as the translated names of the operas. Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, feel helped. I didn't expect the translation to be so good, after we had - rather recently - "Teenager Alter" translated as "tea rodent age", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed at Rinaldo

User:Brianboulton has recently done an excellent job improving the article on Handel's Rinaldo in time for the opera's 300th anniversary 2 1/2 weeks from now. It would be great to get this promoted to FA in time for a mainpage feature on 24 February. In order to do this, the article needs reviewers at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rinaldo (opera)/archive1. It would be great if project members could comment there in the next couple days. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all who participated in the peer review. Rinaldo is now up at FAC. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rinaldo (opera)/archive1. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Rinaldo was just promoted to FA status. Thanks to all who participated in helping the article get there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Spurious "discographer" at it again

Background here. As soon as his block expired, he started in again at Verdi Requiem discography. While he was blocked, he turned his attentions to the hapless Italian Wikipedia with these bizarre additions to it:Messa di requiem (Verdi). I'll ask Antandrus for advice. In the meantime, I suggest we check Special:Contributions/79.39.119.34 on a daily basis. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP for another two weeks, and reverted the ridiculous additions to the Italian Wikipedia. By the way, one of the anon's items added to the Verdi Requiem page on the Italian wiki came from this page, where it is given as an April Fool's joke -- as though we needed independent confirmation that there was no such performance. Does anyone with decent Italian language skills know if there is an equivalent project at the Italian wiki that could be informed? Antandrus (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Antandrus. I've left a note on the Italian WP classical music project talk page, which they call the "Caffè Sinfonico". Nice name! Voceditenore (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Rossini operas nominated for deletion!

Someone has nominated Template:Rossini operas for deletion on the grounds that the old horizontal one (Template:Rossini operas (horizontal)) which I had created when we were discussing possible new formats is "better". I strongly opposed the deletion and have pointed out at the discussion that this is one of 180 vertical operas by composer navboxes, and that by consensus here it was preferred to the horizontal format. If other members would like to add their input, the deletion discussion is here – Voceditenore (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed with a rather paradoxical-sounding "Snow keep (oppose)", so that's a relief. Good work, everybody. --GuillaumeTell 11:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Love for Three Oranges

An anonymous editor has replaced all the character names with their equivalents from the French libretto used at the first production. Previously the article used the names as normally found in English and US productions and recordings. It seems to me that either we should have the title of the article in English (on the basis of this being the way the opera is normaly referred to in English-speaking countries), and hence have the names in their English equivalents (with their French renderings perhaps in brackets)- or, we should move the opera to 'L'amour des trois oranges' and leave the characters' names in French (with their English renderings perhaps in brackets). I prefer the first of these options - (otherwise there could also be a case for listing all the Russian names.....) Just to complicate matters I will remind you that the first production, in French, used a translation of Prokofiev's adaption of a libretto proposed by Meyerhold which involved translation from Italian into Russian of elements of Gozzi's original play. Opinions please?--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia and presumably most of our opera going readers will be going to productions in English-speaking countries. I think the article should reflect what is traditionally done in the English-speaking world. A possible compromise would be to do something in the roles table like what was done in the Les vêpres siciliennes article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, thanks for advice. --Smerus (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Idea for gathering free music

Hello all. I have an idea, originally for WikiProject Free Music, but posted here since the project seems quite inactive.

I was thinking that an admirable (but extremely challenging) goal for WikiProject Classical Music would be to work with the Free Music project to attain basically the same goal Musopen is shooting for - free recordings of all public domain music. However, to achieve this goal, it would be helpful to have a listing of current progress toward this goal, perhaps with tables for each composer, a listing of all their compositions, and the status on recorded versions of those compositions. This would allow the teams to see what exactly has been recorded by every composer and how much they need to get that composer's complete works available. The list here seems useful for cataloging a bunch of songs, but not as a tool to tell what music is available and what isn't by each composer. So I made a small mockup of this idea in my sandbox here. The meat of the idea is in the Layout section. Would it be a worthwhile endeavor to set up a page with this idea in place, but with a range of composers and all their compositions? I ask because doing so would be a fair amount of work that could be wasted if people don't find the idea useful.

Note that I also brought this up on another user's page and WikiProject Classical Music's talk page.

Thanks in advance,

atallcostsky talk 04:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Die Hochzeit des Figaro

The Marriage of Figaro accepted as the title of the article, I would like to know how to describe the singing in German of Die Hochzeit des Figaro, thinking of all the great singers in German opera tradition until singers traveled internationally and the subtitles came up. (This could also be said about French, Swedish ...). To mention the English title in any way seems not appropriate to me in such a case. Suggestion: She sang the part of the "Gräfin" (Contessa) in Mozart's Die Hochzeit des Figaro. Or Countess? Contessa doesn't appear in the article other than in the quote. (Btw: "Contessa's" would sound more melodic than "Countess'".) - Once the voice parts are so carefully restored to authenticity, shouldn't the roles match? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You should use the Italian Le nozze di Figaro if you prefer it to the English title and then put in parentheses (sung in German), if it's important to mention this. However, the roles should be the ones given in the role table for the opera. It's inappropriate to use the German names for the roles and especially inappropriate and confusing to the reader to refer to the opera by its translated German title. Voceditenore (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what voceditenore said. Many readers in the english wiki would not know what character "Gräfin" was referring to or to which opera Die Hochzeit des Figaro was refering to. It's much preferable to give roles as they appear in the roles table of the opera and to name operas as they appear in the english wiki titles or in their original non-translated language. This way the reader will not have to click away from the article to comprehend what is being said. Also, this is not a situation that is all that unusual or particular to German houses. It was common practice in the 19th century (and well into the 20th) for European houses to translate operas into their own language for performances. Some houses in Eastern Europe and Russia still follow this practice, whereas its become less popular elsewhere. Sometimes performances would be given in a mix of languages if the casts included people from different countries (i.e. an opera house in France that had native and foreign singers would have the French singers sing their arias in French and the foreign singers sing their arias in their native language within the same productiom). The only place that this practice was less common during the 19th and early 20th centuries was in English speaking countries, which had the peculiarity of prefering to hear works in either their original language or oddly in Italian translations of German and French operas. Ever since Handel the Italian language dominated the English opera stage.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Except Russian operas, which were usually performed in German in the anglosphere, and sometimes given German titles to boot. Hence "Yevgeny Onyegin" became well known as "Eugen Onegin" (pron. Oy-gen); so much so that, even when arias are broadcast on radio or sung in concert in the original Russian, they will still sometimes be announced as items from "Oygen Onegin". Thankfully, it's mostly called "Eugene Onegin" (pron. Yu-jean) these days. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
or "one gin", as Nabokov used to say. Sparafucil (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the ENO called its recent production Figaro's Wedding, as being a more accurate translation of the original title. One of the producers said at the time, "The opera is about the marriage of Count and Countess Almaviva, it's about Figaro's wedding." I would have thought the most obvious German title would be Figaros Hochzeit. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

La boheme: Best New Opera

La boheme in London is nominated for the Oliver Award for Best New Opera Production: http://www.olivierawards.com/nominations/view/item114062/Best-New-Opera-Production/ -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added it to OperaUpClose, who produced it. If it does win the Olivier award, it might be worth adding to La bohème as well. Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for Rinaldo!

Handel's Rinaldo has just been promoted to Featured Article. Many congratulations and multiple thank-you's (yet again!) to Brian Boulton who managed to bring this start class article to featured status in three weeks, and just in time for the 300th anniversary of its premiere. Thanks too to all who helped and especially 4meter4 whose idea it was try for FA status in time for the anniversary. I've updated Portal:Opera to add it to the rotation and also added the anniversary to the "In this month" section. Voceditenore (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooray indeed! But the premiere date of 24 February 1711 is a Julian Calendar (Old Style) date. We changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1752 (see Calendar (New Style) Act 1750), losing 11 days (3-13 September 1752). So the actual 300th anniversary could also be on 7 March 2011. Or was it on 13 February? --GuillaumeTell 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I did think of that. But we tend to ignore the calendar adjustment when celebrating anniversaries - othrewis we'd be burning Guy Fawkes's image on 16 November. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Raul has scheduled it for 25 February which, as Guillaume points out, means that it will be shown on the front page on its centenary date at least in some parts of the world. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Besides, with all the scene changes, intermissions, etc. I bet it ran for at least 4 hours. On the 25th, they were probably in the middle of the final curtain calls and "Viva Handel" (or whatever they shouted in 18th century London opera houses). Voceditenore (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_100&oldid=1190138475"