Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 81

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 75

←

Archive 79

→

Archives Table of Contents

Project page: Samson and Delilah — place of premiere

On the project page under "Opera of the Month", "People and things connected with Samson and Delilah", "Articles needed" it mentions "Grossherzogliches Theater (place of premiere)".

According to de:Samson et Dalila, the premiere took place at the de:Deutsches Nationaltheater und Staatskapelle Weimar, called "Weimarer Hoftheater" in the article's text; the English Wikipedia article for that German Wikipedia page is Staatskapelle Weimar — does that help?

I don't think the house was ever known as "Grossherzogliches Theater" (which needs to be spelled with "ß" instead of "ss"), but as "Weimarer Hoftheater", since 1919 as "Deutsches Nationaltheater Weimar", the orchestra as "Herzogliche Hofkapelle", since 1988 "Staatskapelle Weimar" — which is the name of the English Wikipedia article.

I'm trying to point out that we do have a page of sorts about the place of the premiere. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a postcard [1] depicting the same building in the Staatskapelle Weimar article. On the postcard itself and well as the web site it's on, [2] it's labelled "Großherzogliches Theater". It seems to have as many names as the Teatro San Benedetto had. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

College Light Opera Company and wider problems with opera company articles

What do you all think about this article: College Light Opera Company? It's been tagged for notability since December.Nrswanson (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It reads like a very dull advertisement with an excessive amount of uninteresting information. --GuillaumeTell 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

True but do you think it meets the notability requirements? I don't think so. I am thinking of nominating it for an AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look. It probably is notable enough with proper referencing. See [3]. I left a note on the talk page re what's required and tagged the article for tone and referencing. Let's see how it develops. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, the opera company articles in general are very poor, especially the ones for minor American ones. Many are of dubious notability (almost all only local, if that) and none of it supported by references. These are just 3 examples from many: Encompass New Opera Theatre, Bronx Opera, Opera for the Young. Apart from the biggies, almost all the American opera company articles (even for the mildly notable ones) have no third party reliable references at all. Membership in OPERA America does not automatically confer notability on an opera company - no more than the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants confers notability on accountants. It's a service organization which member companies pay to join. Incidentally, the OPERA America article itself has no references whatsoever, apart fom its own web site. I'm going to tag a lot of these in the upcoming week for no refs and notability (where its doubtful or marginal). Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at West Bromwich Operatic Society which appeared in our Alerts on the Project page, and couldn't summon up any enthusiasm for halting the PROD process - especially as they appeared to specialise in musicals rather than operas. --GuillaumeTell 18:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the American company articles are in poor shape but I don't think most of them would fail an AFD. For example, a quick search at the New York Times revealed lots of reviews for productions by Encompass New Opera Theatre ([4], [5], etc.) and Bronx Opera ([6], [7], [8], etc.) Certainly enough coverage there to support notability requirements.Nrswanson (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes they probably would pass an AfD, but the problem is that the coverage you mentioned isn't referenced in the articles. We should be able to do better than what is currently there. By the way, I've now referenced and re-written College Light Opera Company and removed the maintenance tags. Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Camelia Voin AfD

This article has been listed at Articles for Deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelia Voin for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Portal:Opera - Discussion needed

Following this brief disussion,[9] some rather radical changes have been made to the Opera Portal by User:Cirt. In my view, they not necessarily welcome ones and quite contrary to what we had envisaged for the portal in our previous discussions here. The portal now has old articles and seemingly restricted only to ones with officially "good article" or "featured article" status. There are only 3 in rotation and one of them, Erik Chisholm is only tangentially related to opera. Not one of his operas even has an article. Likewise the images used are mostly dreary and small. If this is the price of going for "featured portal status", well, I'm not sure I'm in favour of it all, frankly. Cirt, has said he'll come here to discuss how the "randomization" process works. I suggest members have a look at the new format of the Portal and bring their questions/comments here, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a bit more time - still in the process of reformatting it. This was after this comment by Whjayg (talk · contribs). Also, please continue discussion about the portal at the portal's main talk page, which is Portal talk:Opera. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to members: I've copied all of the above to Portal talk:Opera. Please bring your comments there instead of here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(I wrote this in Portal talk:Opera but in case some of dont read the comments there. I am still shocked with major changes made by someone even actually he/she supposed to do some minor configuration because I said I need some time) I have been thinking to revert the whole formats /articles to the old one - then only we will do the randomize articles without changing the main format. The randomized article means, it will display all archived articles including the new one automatically without having people to hit the "archived link" (readers will still have the option). In the future, all "major revamp" will be done in the sandpage, NOT in the main page. As for articles, it will be done through monthly discussion as usual. Before I revert back to the old format, I like to know whether you guys agree to revert or not. If majority wants to keep current format, I will leave it as it is. Please responds. I may not be able to reply fast due to time different - Jay (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not cross-post. Please keep comments relating to the Portal at Portal talk:Opera, and comments relating to the WikiProject at this WikiProject talk page. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC

Victor Herbert

Are "Babes in Toyland" and "The Ameer" operas or musicals? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They are operettas.Nrswanson (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But still within our project's boundary, right? I'm trying to get together a few opera FPs *grumble because noone else seems interested in that grumble* Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct. An operetta is a form of opera. Did you mean FA?Nrswanson (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, It's to do with the Portal - the Livbrary of Congress has a lot of theatrical posters, and I just skimmed all 2000+ of them to try and find a few more opera posters. It's pretty much Carmen, Aida, The Ameer, Babes in Toyland, and then tons and tons of Gilbert and Sullivan. (There's two Massenet posters as well, but, dammit, not online, and it wouldn't be practical to pay for them to scan them for me). Of course, there's nothing wrong with Gilbert and Sullivan, but we can't very well have nothing but them.

Of course, that's just the theatrical posters - there's also photos of opera houses and such, but the posters are mainly in colour, which does help at thumbnail resolution - for instance, the Lohengrin FP is quite good, but it was originally a big, A3 image, and so looks a little awkward at a mere 200px wide. Anyway, I can probably get it up to at least ten, which is a good start. We can then look at what else we have. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this group, I'm also a member of the WikiProject Musical Theatre and I believe they consider Babes in Toyland to come under their view (see the talk page). I would open a discussion with them before you attempt to edit those pages, or pages of similar works. -- kosboot (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I really would hope that "I've added a high-quality poster to help illustrate this article!" would not be met with "NOOOO! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING!?" =P 129.215.149.97 (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... yes... I should hope not.;-) Kosboot, no one's planning to "mess around" with "their" articles. This conversation is simply about whether we could use the occasional operetta poster as part of the rotating featured images on Portal:Opera, and yes we can in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

[moving left] Hello everyone. Kleinzach stated some time ago that he preferred for the articles on American operettas by Herbert, Friml and Romberg, etc. to be cared for by the musicals project. Only one or two other people besides me have really worked on them over the past three years, and I am delighted for anyone else to work on them, as they are not my primary focus anyhow. Nearly all of them need expansion and referencing, and I am no expert on Herbert. I certainly have no objection to your using their posters for your portal. Thanks to Nrswanson for greatly expanding the Victor Herbert article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Opera

they have closed http://www.courant.com/entertainment/stage/hc-connopera.artfeb12,0,5869959.story?track=rss someone needs to update the wiki or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geokaii (talk • contribs) 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. What a pity! Thanks for letting us know. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Elena Baramova résumé deletion discussion

I'd be happy if anybody'd like to weigh in. Vitellia (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Different styles for front-page of WikiProjects

Here are some alternate styles for the front page of a WikiProject to consider as models for the front page of this WikiProject: WP:SYRIA, WP:RUSSIA, WP:NORWAY. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

February To-do list

(Incomplete) Samson et Dalila

Prepare Dalila's two solos as audio.

Camille Saint-Saëns

The Library of Congress has three high-resolution photographs of Saint-Saëns, all order of magnitude better than the one we have. They're from the same photo shoot, however, and I'd rather not clean up three photos that are fairly similar, unless they turn out to be in fairly pristine condition and thus quick and easy, even for someone like me who tends not to work on photos (it's a somewhat different skillset than engravings).

Here's the three options, I'll do any that get a reasonable consensus:

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In some ways, #1 is best because it doesn't cut off his legs. It does have a bit too much slightly distracting nautical background, however. Of the others, I prefer #3, which makes him look a bit more human and a bit less like Edward VII. But I wouldn't object to any of them. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer number 1, it is a full photo of him - Jay (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite done, but it's not going to be finished today:

I've done most of the work on him himself, except continuing to try and fix the awful shoe. Some of the background still needs fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm done with it. I've done what I could, and I threw it up on FPC in the hopes that someone would fix the things I can't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Family opera initiative AFD

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family opera initiative for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Auguste von Müller

I just created the article on Auguste von Müller. I found a good source for a basic overview of her career but the source does not provide the year of her birth or death. Can anyone help?Nrswanson (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1848-1912 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mddelphis (talk • contribs) 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)