Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 17

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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archives Table of Contents

Opera photos

I noticed that we are allowed to link articles with videos from youtube.com. Since we can do that, can we print screen the photos from there (the opera video) and put in up in the articles? Or, can we use snapshot pictures from DVDs (purchased by us for our personal use) for any articles, (refer example) from my own purchased DVD and can also be downloaded from youtube.com.-Jay 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do we have a link to youtube? Per the external links policy (as well as US law) linking to known copyright violations is not allowed. Videos on youtube are very often copyright violations. As for images from videos, they would have to be used as unfree works under our Wikipedia:Non-free content rules. There would have to be very strong rationales for the use of non-free content in these articles. Since it is realistically possible to get a free image of a staging ot Tosca, or a free image of Plácido Domingo, or possibly both, it is very unlikely that we could use this content. Mak (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? Oh god, I can easily find it in many articles especially singers (operas and non-operas). That is why I thought it was allowed. - Jay 17:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jay, we do have a great need for photos! We haven't had much time for this so far (although Moreschi has had some experience with WikiCommons). You have to learn how to process images in the desired WP way, but if you were willing to do this it would be great, (It's sometimes difficult for those of us who are not American to appreciate the kind of copyright-paranoia which has developed as a result of changes in US law relating to intellectual property but we have to live with this.) Incidentally we need historic material as well as modern, and this is often free of copyright problems. I guess you could use the processed images on the Malaysian WP as well.

Anyway if you want to be our official picture researcher the job is available - even if the salary isn't very attractive! --Kleinzach 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would honestly not worry that much about fair use violation. If no free alternative is available, it is perfectly acceptable to use an image from a copyrighted video of a staged opera. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mak says  “Since it is realistically possible to get a free image of a staging ot Tosca,
or a free image of Plácido Domingo, or possibly both, it is very unlikely that we could use    
this content”.

Mak, I totally agree with you, I have read the Wiki policy when I first joined and I understood but, under some circumstances, I would say that the statement can be challenged / arguable. I said that because:- (let’s use the photo as an example)

Yes you are right that we can always watch Tocsa but no, we can never see Placido Domingo as “Mario Cavaradossi” ever again because of his age. That means, the photo is consider historic moment that will never happen again
Yes, you are right again that there are possibilities for us to meet or bump into Domingo but no, we can never see him at that shape again (the photo)

Based on those 2 facts, don’t you think Wiki could slightly bend the policy? This is just a discussion; the “said” photo is use for this discussion only - Jay 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if fair dealing (what the Americans call "fair use") applies to video images? In British law it seems to refer to words and music, but not images. --Kleinzach 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue is that Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to create free content and release it under a free license. So, although Fair Use does apply to images, our non-free image policies are more strict than the law because of our goals of creating a free-content encyclopedia. In addition, it is very difficult to determine whether or not using an unlicensed image constitutes Fair use, because the rulings are all over the map, and the only way you can tell for sure is if you have a court case about it (which is not very efficient, to say the least). For the legal test, see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Law, and for the test for non-free images on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images. A main issue is whether you are actually using the image for serious commentary, or simply illustration and/or window dressing. There has to be a compelling reason that you need that particular screenshot of that particular person in that particular opera in order for you to use it. I would encourage people, when thinking about images, to check out first the articles in other languages on Wikipedia, then the Wikimedia commons, then I've actually had a certain amount of success finding cc-by images on flickr (there's an option to search only creative commons licensed images). When you find a free image, whether it's old or from flickr, or on another language Wikipedia site, I would encourage you to upload it to the commons. You do have to make another account, but once it's made I actually find it easier uploading stuff over there. I'm an admin on commons too, so if you run into any trouble, or need anything deleted, just ask, probably on my talk page here, though, since I check it more often. Mak (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough reply. Going off at a bit of tangent, judging by Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images it seems we can only use CD/DVD covers etc if we are reviewing the CD itself. This means that a lot of the covers used on our pages should really be deleted (no great loss IMO). --Kleinzach 22:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably right. If you can grab a list of them for me, or point me to the articles, I'd really appreciate it, and I can remove and delete the images. Mak (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. --Kleinzach 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on requesting photos is at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I'm guessing a lot of singers or their publicists would be happy to release a nice photo for Wikipedia, since we're such a widely-used source, and so high in search results (first one I tried, Deborah Voigt, we're number 3). I'd encourage anyone who has a pet opera singer they'd like a photo for on WP see what they can do in terms of asking for photos. Mak (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have many Domingo's opera DVD (mostly Deutsche Grammophon), I think I would try to ask for copyright permission for the snapshots. Yes, you are right, I am very sure their publicists would be more than happy to have their singers nice photos to be published here. From what I heard from Guild (The Met), "young" Domingo's opera DVDs are still selling well in the market worldwide, I believe they have no issue with the snapshots - Jay 03:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You may also be able to get better quality images than fuzzy video shots. --Kleinzach 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think it's more likely that they'll give out rejected photos from a promo reel or other miscellaneous photos. I think it's unlikely that they'll be able to freely license anything that's on a DVD cover or booklet, because the ownership of copyright on those things is so complex. Mak (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Makemi's point, if the photographer (or whoever) has assigned copyright to the agent/PR company then obtaining permission is fairly easy. If the photographer has retained copright then it's much, much harder. -- Kleinzach 03:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BIO-infoboxes

These are now off all opera composers pages (with the exception of one minor article: Michael Nyman). Thanks to everyione involved in the cleanup. However we still have boxes on pages devoted to singers etc. These can be as error-prone as the composers and for the same reason: the box creators generally don't seem to have read the articles etc. --Kleinzach 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also possible to add a subliminal message in the raw text, as follows:

This is a good idea for new articles in particular. --Kleinzach 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I strongly disagree with the indiscriminate removal of all infoboxes and with the assertion that "box creators generally don't seem to have read the articles etc." I think they are a useful quick-reference tool. If one is concerned about inaccuracies, why not just correct them where they are found, just as one does in an article? We don't delete articles because they are inaccurate, we fix them. --Nickbigd 9 May 2007

There is a very strong consensus both here and at the Composers Project against using the BIO-infoboxes. They are not designed for our articles. They are normally difficult or impossible to correct in the way you've suggested. Not only do the boxes have to be fit for purpose but the material to which they link also has to be suitable. Editors don't want to spend time trying to fix something they regard as unnecessary. BIO-infoboxes are not an integral part of articles, so yes, we fix articles, but no, we don't try to fix boxes.--Kleinzach 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one to object to either of those things, "Nickbigd"; I also object to the concept of "our" (sic) articles - they're as much mine and yours as anyone else's. Andy Mabbett 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Pigsonthewing a k a Andy Mabbett, I see you are reverting a series of pages at the moment (Michael Nyman, Philip Glass, Steve Reich‎ - who else?) in what might be seen as a classic WP:POINT action. Can you give us a full list so that we know which ones they are? (Oh, and BTW, 'our' means opera/composers as opposed to pop/whatever. It's quite a common English usage.) --Kleinzach 00:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Kleinzach is correct. Consensus exists across articles at the project level; the same discussion does not need to be instantiated at each article's talk page. Fireplace 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gioachino or Gioacchino?

Modern scholars seem to prefer Rossini's first name with only one 'c'. We are using both versions. Can we fix on the one 'c', assuming there are no double 'c' fans here? Unfortunately this will mean cat changes. -- Kleinzach 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Richard Osborne, Rossini himself normally used the one-'c' version, so that's a Yes from me. --GuillaumeTell 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. We did the same on it.wiki. See also Fondazionerossini.org. Gioachino is the name used by the authors of the critical edition of Rossini's works. --Al Pereira (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I have gone ahead with the category change here. --Kleinzach 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Blond Eckbert

I've created a topic for this opera and cross-referenced it from Judith Weir. So far I've put in some performance history, references and the characters and original cast. Pity that a lot of red links have appeared. I plan to add the synopsis later. Others welcome. -- Peter cohen 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't wait. Synopsis now included. -- Peter cohen 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks excellent. I wouldn't worry about the red links. Are you going to do The Vanishing Bridegroom? --Kleinzach 22:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I don't plan to do The Vanishing Bridegroom in a hurry. I have the libretto and original programme notes for Eckbert which I don't have for Bridegroom. The next article from the list of operas I gave when I first joined the project is likely to be Libuše. I've got a recording with notes and libretto and think it's quite an important opera in its way. But I really must do some of my real work before I do any more wiki. -- Peter cohen 22:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Source link

I registered in Wiki Source and wrote an article (aria) to test how to do linkage to here but to my surprised, it doesn’t work like WikiCommons. Wikicommons files are able to identify by file names. (Example: if the filename is Verdi.jpg, the photo will appear in any wiki pages without having us to do manual link). I copied “Svegliatevi nel core” to Wiki source and all the hyperlinks in “Svegliatevi nel core” article (in Wikisource) turn RED. And if I linked that page to Wiki EN, it comes out with tiny arrow at the end of the title name, just link our external links. I thought I want to write some famous arias in there but now I think I would rather do it in here (Wiki EN), at least until all these issues have been finalized - Jay 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you link from a Wikisource page to a Wikipedia page is [[w:Svegliatevi nel core]]. The way to link from a Wikipedia page to a Wikisource page is [[s:Svegliatevi nel core]]. If you don't want the prefix to show up, you can use the shortcut of piping the link, like this, [[w:Svegliatevi nel core|]]. What I've done when using Wikisource is to put one of those nice little boxes, indicating that there's a Wikisource material, see, for instance, Gil Brenton and s:Gil Brenton. The template name is {{wikisourcepar}}. For more in interwiki links, see Help:Interwiki linking. Mak (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kewl, it works. Thanks. I use [[s:Svegliatevi nel core|Svegliatevi nel core]] instead of [[s:Svegliatevi nel core]] to hide the "s". Thanks again. - Jay 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's faster to just use the pipe, it'll be filled in automatically when you save :) Mak (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have transferred Libiamo ne' lieti calici of La traviata, Svegliatevi nel core of Giulio Cesare to Wikisource and deleted them from Wikipedia. I also “linked” all hyperlinks in the articles to Wikipedia EN because Wikisource doesn’t have operas, operatic singers, composers and librettists list (a bit troublesome). In Wikisource, I created a template (a small navigation box) says "Return to the source article <main article name such as Giulio Cesare or La Traviata> in Wikipedia." I created the template to make it more “user friendly” to the readers to come back in here after reading the texts. I am planning to write “famous arias” in there, some are new and some are from here. All arias that have been transferred from here will be deleted. Hit the links to see them in Wikisource (aria links only). Let me know if you have any comments. - Jay 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Comic operas to English comic operas?

Now that Sacred operas and Satirical operas have been deleted, we only have one major subject category left: Comic operas. Comedies probably account for a quarter to a third of all the 1,600 works listed on The opera corpus, however most of these are in specific genre categories: Drammi giocosi, Farse, Intermezzi, Opera buffa, Opéras bouffes, Opéras comiques, Opéras féeries, Operettas, and Singspiele.

Category:Comic operas has 70 entries comprising 58 works in English (of which 54 are late 19th century English works, many of them Gilbert and Sullivan) plus 5 Czech, 3 Russian, and one each of French, Danish, German and Italian operas.

The English items, or almost all of them, are closely related in style. Should we rename the category English comic operas? (The others could be removed bearing in mind that operas don't need to belong to a specific (sub) category.) --Kleinzach 07:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that a lot of Opéras comiques (Carmen and Médée spring to mind) are not comic operas. And, as ever, I'd prefer to use terms like "comic opera" only if these appear in the libretto/score (i.e. are so described at the start of the Viking Guide entries). So a cautious "yes". --GuillaumeTell 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I believe all opéras comiques are now designated as opéras comiques, so no problem there. --Kleinzach 09:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I have now gone ahead with asking for renaming.--Kleinzach 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Arias (Wikisource or Wikipedia?)

The admin in Wikisource send me a message saying that "Arias" are better suited in Wikipedia than Wikisource. Well, I kinda agree with him because we usually write the article with some explanation and the translation of the aria. One other reason is because arias are not the complete libretto. It is of course, OK for Wikisource if we uploaded the entire libretto - (Public Domain or available under a GNU free use license). So, what do you guys think? So far I have transferred Svegliatevi nel core, Libiamo ne' lieti calici, Recondita armonia, E lucevan le stelle, La donna è mobile (and deleted the articles from Wikipedia). Planned to do many more but now I think I better put it on hold for a moment. I need to know your opinion whether we should have them here or Wikisource. I may have to transfer them all back here. PS- We have had this discussion before in (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive15)- Jay 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that original texts belong in WikiSource, whereas commentary about arias goes in the opera articles. I don't know if the views of this admin are representative, but if WikiSource really don't want arias, only whole libretti, then I suppose they should be deleted. What do other people think? Is this admin being reasonable? --Kleinzach 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these aria articles is that they don't make for viable articles (let alone good or featured ones). I'm not familiar with Wikisource, but couldn't they cut the commentary there - which is not so useful anyway, maybe we could bring the more useful bits of commentary back into the articles on the operas over here, we've got plenty of room - but keep the arias? While I understand that they would prefer the complete libretto, is that so practical? To be honest, we really need a Wikisourcian over here to explain how the place works, because I don't know.

Incidentally, for Svegliatevi nel core, the Wikisource page doesn't distinguish between the first paragraph - which, as far as I can remember, is the introductory recitative - and the aria itself, whcih starts, as you might expect, on the words "Svegliatevi nel core". Just something someone might like to fix :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe arias should be in here along with the commentary because it is easier for readers to read the “fracture” of the libretto (the aria) along with the explanation given. And then, we can add a link or a “box” with remarks “Wikisource has the text source of "<<the opera title>>” in which it will be the complete libretto. It is a bit hassle for readers to read the commentary here and then have to hit the link to see the aria on the other page. The admin added in his comment “Wikisource is home to source material as it was originally published (sort of). Perhaps you could upload the entire Libretto, assuming that the translation were in the Public Domain or available under a GNU free use license”.

About "Svegliatevi nel core", I can remove the introductory recitative, that shouldnt be any problem but the issue is, shall I transfer them all back here? - Jay 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the intro recitative because out of 6 singers that I have listened singing “"Svegliatevi nel core", 3 of them include the intro in their recording album. (Domingo and 2 other singers I cant remember their names). Refer http://www.aria-database.com/libretti/cesare04_svegliatevi.txt, it also includes the recitative.

The text written is actually as simple as below:

Svegliatevi nel core

furie d'un alma offesa,

a far d'un traditor

aspra vendetta!

L'ombra del genitore

accorre a mia difesa,

e dice: a te il rigor,

Figlio si aspetta.”

I had to listen again and again to write them as per singing, and that is why it looks long. - Jay 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted the question in the main forum Wikisource:Scriptorium to get the admins to reply. I am not so sure whether the guy that messaged me is an admin or only a normal user. Hopefully the admins could reply whether they only accept the complete libretti while pieces of it such as arias should be someplace else. If they could accept arias without commentary, I’ll remove them. It is just that I don’t feel it looks “right” leaving the aria alone without any explanation. But if that is what as required, I’ll do as what they said. - Jay 16:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think there may even by a policy problem with having these aria articles here: most of them, in my estimation, possibly fail Wikipedia:Notability. It's the "non-trivial" coverage that perturbs me when it comes to these arias: there aren't a huge amount of books written about just one aria, though there are probably a few exceptions. We do have to bear policy in mind: if these aria articles fail WP:N, they just can't remain here, whether they work at wikisource or no. Moreschi ^Talk 12:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that no (print) opera reference books have articles on arias (or characters/roles), basically for the reason that Moreschi has just given. -- Kleinzach 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, a moderately informed classical music fan might be able to come with the following arias descibed as follows: Handel's largo, Nessun dorma, La donna e mobile, the Queen of the Night aria and the one from Barber of Seville where he goes "Figaro, Figaro". ;-) Naming Largo al Factotum is a bit much to expect. Referring to, say, celeste Aida or visi d'arte by name shows someone is already in the know. And in that case would they want to use wiki? --Peter cohen 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Being an encyclopedia, in my opinion, it is good to have and to provide articles about opera arias for readers references. Bear in mind that not all readers out there know what is “opera” and what opera is all about.

By providing them with the details of the opera with synopsis, roles, aria lists and the “aria texts” would help them to understand the whole picture of the “opera”. I said this because I live in a country where 70% of populations do not know what opera is all about. By providing details to those who do not know or with only a bit knowledge about opera, would help them to understand more. I don’t know about you guys and people around you but based on own experience explaining to people who don’t know what opera is all about, the best way to educate them is by providing them with details in encyclopedia format – pictures and all (what I wish WP would be in a very near future)

Don’t talk about opera fans. I don’t think die-heart opera fans would bother to read our articles about opera especially arias, simply because those who love opera would rather buy opera/libretto books/DVDs or spend their money to watch the opera live. People who don’t know opera will not bother to spend even a single cent or time like me and you guys to source/buy for books or read the libretto (even though I do not understand single words of Italian).

WP is a good place for people who want to learn without having them to pay. I sometimes feel tired explaining to people around me about the “songs” I played in my car/apartment/at work – to some of people , opera singers are bunch of crazy old men/women with weird crazy voices singing in a language they don’t understand. By providing them with the arias, commentary and the English translation, it would help them to understand the meaning of the arias and why the singer must cry or laugh while singing it. With this, I hope you guys would understand why I believe it is important for us to make WP as a complete encyclopedia. We do not need to post the complete libretto, let it be in WS but I wish if we could keep the arias here with all the links to the related opera titles, composers, singers etc.

The latest by this Sunday, I may have to transfer those 5 arias back to here (1 written by me but other 4 have been here for quite some time). I leave it up to you guys to think what to do with them and the rest of the arias in here. Please consider what I just said – why I think we should keep them or perhaps grow them or improve the format to the standard applicable to WP policy.. but don’t delete them. Besides, if it is true from what I heard /some of you also did mentioned about this ; the copyright of music compositions where the creator has been dead more than 100 years are free.. that would definitely narrow our licensing problem. I am not so sure about licensing, I can’t say much about it. PS- Sorry the the WS-WP trouble. To be frank, I regret moving them to WS in the first place. - Jay 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe bringing thee pages back to WP is the answer. Original texts don't belong here. (Commentary on arias should be integrated with opera title articles of course.) If WikiSource editors are against having this kind of partial, incomplete material then IMO they should delete it. What do other people think? --Kleinzach 03:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I leave it up to you guys. Other than that 5 arias, there are 25 more (refer Category:Arias). I have brought back all those 5. I better use my time to write articles than doing the useless efforts to transfer them back and forth or to think of what’s best. I have no problem where they should be placed, I just don’t feel it is wise to remove arias from WP or WS.- Jay 03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I intended to get involved in the discussion at WikiSource but just didn't have time with all the disruptions here. I don't think they understand multi-language material, or opera come to that. Sorry you had so much trouble. --Kleinzach 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)