Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100
Archives Table of Contents

L'Ipermestra

I do not understand how this is possible, but there seem to be two (identical) articles with identical titles about this opera. It is mentioned twice on the page Category:Italian-language operas, and the pages have been created shortly after one another. Might it not be better to have one of these pages removed, or do we then run the risk of losing them both? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Having gone back to the category page, now miraculously it is only mentioned once! So pls ignore the above.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
It was matter of commas which I fixed. The article creator made two identical article: L’Ipermestra and L'Ipermestra. I fixed it by turning "L’Ipermestra" into a redirect to "L'Ipermestra".4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added all the Mysliveček operas in the navbox to the opera corpus. The leads all look rather similar and there are no synopses. A cursory inspection of Grove Opera reveals only one version of Ezio, though I wouldn't necessarily take that as gospel. --GuillaumeTell 17:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The WP article on the second Ezio says that all the music was brand new! almost-instinct 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
PS footnotes one and three on Josef Mysliveček are interestingly paranoic! almost-instinct 09:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
...and completely WP:OR. --Folantin (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have copyedited accordingly. --Smerus (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

L'Orfeo

I have started work on the expansion of L'Orfeo, along the lines followed earlier with L'incoronazione and Ulisse. This will complete the trio of extant Monteverdi operas. Something should start to show within the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Mefistofele

One of my personal editing principles is never to delete content written by another contributor (unless at least two reliable sources show that it is not correct), but I do feel that the last sentence in the section Performance history and revisions of this article should be deleted. The words generally regarded do not sound very encyclopedic, and might attract weasel words criticism from some quarters. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, unreferenced content, if disputable, is fair game. No reference is given in the article for "generally regarded", so it's perfectly OK to Be bold and delete it per Jimmy Wales's remarks. Plus those of us who know Werther, La damnation de Faust, Mignon et al could quite likely make a better case for each or all. --GuillaumeTell 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Have been bold and deleted sentence. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Category help, please!

Hi. Someone has just created Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performing groups. These things were formerly in subcategories of Category:Opera companies, which is where I think they belong. Does anyone have an opinion? Also, I do not think this person has correctly created the category so that it works in the hierarchical category tree. I do not want to mess up the categories, so I can use some technical help here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the category doesn't work in the category tree as the category isn't a sub-category of any other category. My inclination would be to make it a sub-category of Category:Gilbert and Sullivan, and I'll do so in a minute. Various G&S performing groups currently appearing in the rag-bag under the latter category could then be relocated into this new sub-category. Category:Opera companies doesn't, IMO, seem to me to fit. But it's late at night (for me) and it's easy to make mistakes, so I'll look again at the situation tomorrow morning. --GuillaumeTell 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've put the new sub-category into Category:Gilbert and Sullivan and, as a precedent to be followed (IMO), have changed the category of American Savoyards from Category:Gilbert and Sullivan to Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performing groups. If this looks OK, feel free to recategorise any article currently categorised in Category:Gilbert and Sullivan into the new sub-category while removing it from the higher-level-category as above. Feel free to complain, contact me or whatever if this doesn't make sense. --GuillaumeTell 00:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (yawning)
Thanks for looking into this. This is OK with me if it works ok with the category tree now. I edited the parameters of the category to make it clear that it includes only performing groups that regularly perform, or performed, G&S. I moved these to the new category. Check in the morning and see if you have any other suggestions. Kindly put your response on my talk page, as I'm dewatching this now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

...has just been promoted to Good Article status. Congratulations to Peter cohen, Smerus and the other editors who have contributed to the effort. I've now added it to "Selected Biography" rotation at Portal:Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Really Smerus is the dynamic leader of the drive for featured status and I'm the copy editor. When we go for FA, User:Antandrus and User:Dogbertd will appear as co-noms. They haven't been greatly involved in the recent efforts but have both made well over 100 edits each to the article. Smerus has done as many edits as any two of the other three of us combined and we've all got more than double anyone else.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Claude Heater

While searching for the original cast of Trouble in Tahiti, I came upon the above article. At first, I thought that most of it was taken from his website and is a copyvio, but on closer inspection it does seem to have been tweaked somewhat so I've left it as is. It does need wikification and the Mormon stuff could be toned down but I have other things to do. Any volunteers? --GuillaumeTell 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not tweaked enough. It was still a virtually verbatim copy-paste (including the spelling and grammar errors!) + some weird unreferenced anecdotal claims in the middle. I've stubbed it as a copyright violation. There's plenty of info out there about him in reliable sources ([1], [2] [3]) if someone wants to tackle the job. Voceditenore (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Much better now thanks to 4meter4 and GuillaumeTell ! – Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chocolate Soldier

Someone added a section near the bottom about the use of this term in Australia. But I don't think, from the references, that it has anything to do with the operetta. It seems, rather, to be based on Shaw's Arms and the Man. If others agree with me, please delete and explain on the talk page. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I do and I did.;-) (See Talk:The Chocolate Soldier.) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

L'Orfeo

Congratulations to User:Brianboulton who has just gotten L'Orfeo promoted to featured article status. Well done!4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I second that wholeheartedly ! --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations and an big thank you to Brian from me too! I've added it to the rotation at Portal:Opera and updated the main OP page. Voceditenore (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Composer categories

A new editor, User:RPekař, is rapidly creating categories for every opera composer, even if the person has only composed one opera. The guidelines say not to create categories for things that have only a few members and that are not likely to grow. Please see this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth I left him a message, but it would be good if someone from this project could leave him a message to explain why this is WP:OVERCATegorization is not helpful. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see this as a problem. It's useful as a search tool to have every opera article fit into the Category:Operas by composer. This is also not a new issue. For example, Beethoven has only one opera, and Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven has exsisted since 2005.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely not attached to the categories, so I'll adjust to any policy (and I am not that that "rapid" either). And, by the way, I am quite able to become aware of a problem by a single message. Before I started, more than half of the subcategories under "Operas by composer" and "Operas by language" had one or two members, so I thought there was no general aversion to them; and I found a list of Wikipedia articles by composer useful and most easily maintained by the means of categorisation. But I won't go on committing a crime...RPekař (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There is certainly no aversion on my part to the useful work that RPekař has been doing and I hope (s)he carries on doing it. As 4meter4 implies, I and other Opera Project members have happily been creating categories with one or two members for some years. This system, intended to provide comprehensive categorisation, was, IIRC, disrupted by an editor who, without discussion, started Category: Operas by year and in the process managed to create various problems. I might add that the Overcategorisation link provided above by Ssilvers says "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme (my emphasis) - which is what we have long had here. --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem with RPekař's edits either. IIRC I did query this practice a few years back but it turned out it was just standard procedure. RPekař is doing a useful job plugging the gaps in categorisation. --Folantin (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Me too. I think they're fine, and useful, although my watchlist has been bulging over the last 24 hours. I have all the articles in Category:Italian-language operas on my watchlist.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry. I didn't know the project had such an "overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Vernacular/original titles within biographies

If a singer appeared for some years in opera in English and then made equal success in the same roles in the original language, should one refer in his/her biographical article to e.g. "The Mastersingers" in the BNOC paragraphs and then to "Die Meistersinger" in the Covent Garden ones? Or should one standardise on one version regardless? Grateful for advice. - Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think standardization is best so that the reader knows you are talking about the same work. You could simply give the foreign language title in both cases, but use a (sung in English) parenthical note or even a footnote if prefered. Or you could say something like this (I'm making up details obviously): 'he made his debut as Walther in Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg in an English production at the New York City Opera'. Later you could say 'He sang Walther in the original German at the Deutsche Oper Berlin'. Etc. Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall follow your advice. - Tim riley (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
4meter4's advice sounds good, and prompts this thought: if the choice of language is notable enough to warrant mentioning, its probably worth spelling out like this. If say another singer sang Rigoletto at English National Opera and then at the Royal Opera House, then—IMO—its probably not worth the effort pointing out that the first time was in English and the second in Italian, unless there was something noteworthy about the translation or the delivery almost-instinct 08:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rest in peace Joan

I just heard on National Public Radio that Joan Sutherland died yesterday.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And virtually no one could understand her final words?
Varlaam (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not following you Varlaam...4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't mean to be cruel. It just slipped out.
And 4meter4, very droll. Varlaam (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
"... she often came under fire for having unclear diction. Some have attributed this to sinus surgery; however, her major sinus surgery was done in 1959, immediately after her breakthrough Lucia at Covent Garden.[6] In fact, her first commercial recording of the first and final scene of Lucia reveals her voice and diction to be just as clear as prior to the sinus procedure. Her husband Richard Bonynge stated in an interview that her "mushy diction" occurred while striving to achieve perfect legato. According to him, it is because she earlier had a very Germanic "un-legato" way of singing.[7] She clearly took the criticism to heart, as, within a few years, her diction improved markedly"
Markedly? I suspect a lot of people would say that WP was being rather charitable here. Varlaam (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not what WP says, it's what reputable sources say that we just report. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Itallics in opera article titles

Just a heads up. But now opera article titles must be italicized per the policy changes at Wikipedia:Article titles. I was against this change and it is a shame that more people from this project did not voice an opinion because it might have tipped the consensus the other way. Oh well, its not that big of a deal but it does require some housekeeping updates on our part.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Has this been finalized? It says "[under discussion]", so I think there is still hope that this will not happen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the discussion was closed a few weeks back... Are there new developments. (I sure hope so).4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I say, it says "[under discussion]", and see the talk page there. I think there is still time for editors to weigh in, as the Admin who closed the discussion has indicated some flexibility. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's happening all right, several have been changed today by editors. Are they going to get a bot to do it? If not, it's going to be mess. I have no intention of changing any opera articles by hand. I just had a look at the discussion. I'd hardly describe it as a consensus, yet it was closed as one and the "rules" changed. The options were badly worded and ill-thought out and several people are complaining that it wasn't centralised. Alas, I was away until mid-September and this really slipped under the radar. Ah, well, it looks god-awful, but c'est la vie and all that. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
(I only rarely contribute to the opera project—all of you are so much more knowledgeable than me, I just like to listen!—but since the topic's been raised here I suppose I should reply.)
I am the editor who closed the discussion. (I'm not an admin, I just happened to be there and willing.) Since the result is disputed, I suggest that everyone wait on the implementation. It's pointless for everyone to go around italicizing titles if a wider discussion results in a different result. (Personally, I hope that happens. I don't like italics in article titles, but the biologists were fierce and organized...) Ozob (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You had a truly thankless job because people would probably have squawked just as much if it had been closed as no consensus ;-) I suggest we just wait and see what happens for now and leave off any changing of titles until the dust settles. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I rather lost interest in the discussions after I had made my own, of course superb points. I fear (a) WP has got this one rather wrong (b) that against a well-organised biologists my own resolve to repeat, repel, rebuff, re-anything wilts rather. They're not even proper italics anyway, just wonky letters *disappears into eye-rolling huff* almost-instinct 23:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC) PS I recommend everyone who cares acquires a better attitude than mine
My preference continues to be against italicised titles, partly on aesthetic grounds per Almost-instinct. We've had non-italicised titles for years and years and I see no convincing argument to change them now. --Folantin (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Plus of course, the fact that the primary encyclopedic reference works in both opera (e.g. the print Grove) and generally (e.g. the print Britannica), never use italics in the name of the article, e.g. an article about Verdi's opera has the name "Otello" but within the article, it's "Otello". This argument was roundly rejected by the science brigade at the RFC on the somehwhat dubious grounds that Wikipedia should be "better" than these works. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ha. Apparently the biologists only discovered page titles could be italicised in May last year [4]. Before that the science articles must have been mired in an Age of Ignorance in which young people were shamefully lured into the delusion that taxa can sometimes be written without italics ;). It's funny how quickly "may" turns into "must" on Wikipedia (cf. infoboxes). --Folantin (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
If we get lumbered with this rule we need to know whether it should be Macbeth (opera) or Macbeth (opera). Logically it should be the latter, but I bet the template can't do it. almost-instinct 10:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This [5] is what happens (that was a test edit only). --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, misplaced scepticism! I wonder how long before song / poem / aria titles have to include the inverted commas, which would follow the logic of some people's arguments? almost-instinct 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm slightly leaning in favour of italics in article titles, but not fanatically so. There is one reason that Voceditenore touched upon: printed works don't have to contend with disambiguators, so I find Macbeth (opera) not so bad. Much more complicated examples from the world of popular music albums were raised during the discussions where using italics for the title part was rather helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are titles not italicized already? This is totally ridiculous and absurd, not to mention inconsistent.
Atwood's novel The Handmaid's Tale and Schlöndorff's film The Handmaid's Tale, based on it, are italicized, but Ruder's The Handmaid's Tale, which I've seen on stage, of course shouldn't be because it's not a title? Well, what is it then? A jar of herring straight from the fridge?
Varlaam (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Judging by the tone of this post, I seem to have touched upon a tender string by undoing Varlaam's additions of the italictitle template to opera articles. I will leave it to more experienced editors to solve this matter, and will refrain from undoing Varlaam's additions in the future. Best regards and always assuming good faith. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize it that way.
With the other classes of italicizable (is that a word?) pages, there is that quibble in the scheme where the box title and the page title need to match, or the autoprocess doesn't work. And then there are the pages without a box. And then there are the pages which fail regardless.
I naively started "fixing" opera pages where the scheme had failed, without realizing the consensus had yet to be consensed upon. (It is fun to create a word.)
We went through this a few months ago when War and Peace was just like that, italicized, and then I naively thought "That's long overdue" and started using it. And then those all got reverted. Flip-flop, flip-flop.
Varlaam (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Have been browsing WP coverage of popular music. Could not find a single article about an album, a single, or a song where the page title was italicized, though these are all titles. Does popular music fall outside the scope of the scheme? So much for consistency. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghiaurov - Freni (date of marriage)

208.102.146.45 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure how to catch somebody's attention & get something corrected. The article on Mirella Freni says she married Nicolai Ghiaurov in 1981. The article on Nicolai Ghiaurov says he married Mirella Freni in 1978. Clearly, at least one of these is wrong. Who knows, maybe both dates are wrong and some third date is correct. Personally, I'm just somebody who looked the two people up so I don't know the facts. I'm hoping somebody with actual resources at hand can fix this. Thanks. WWK.

I have moved this post by an IP user to a new section, so it might catch the attention of someone who can resolve this inconsistency.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The Freni article has no reference for the 1981 date. The Ghiaurov one appears to rely on Martin Bernheimer's obituary in Opera News which presumably says 1978. The anonymous obituary in The Times ([6]) says 1978. So does Anne Midgette in the New York Times([7]). Google results that say 1981 mostly seem to rely on Wikipedia's Freni article... It looks as if 1978 is correct. --GuillaumeTell 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who has been watching/editing this article lately, take a look at the External links section. It's got a lot of cruft in my opinion and per WP:EL. Candidates for a cull are:

Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, before I saw this, I had already removed nos. 2 and 3 as having no content beyond what we have almost-instinct 09:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The La Stupenda site has a long history section, but also some copyright-violating recordings and a thoroughly spammed discussions section. almost-instinct 09:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the remaining 2. The blog is not appropriate as an external link in the first place, per WP:EL. It also has copyvio recordings, and is not in English when there is a vast amount of material available in English and from professional, published sources. Ditto the Stupenda fansite, apart from the language issue. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Martha Lipton

Heads up on this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Lipton.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Kept per WP:SNOW. Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fritz Hübner

This article is up for speedy deletion.4meter4 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. Actually is was up as {{Prod blp}}. Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement.4meter4 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Genius

Just been created today. Various composers are being added even as we speak. Now up for deletion here for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As seen by the red link, deleted per WP:SNOW Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Janis Martin

I noticed that we have an article on the country singer Janis Martin, but no article on the operatic soprano Janis Martin. There are a few links in opera related articles that are linked incorrectly to the country singer. Anyone care to take a stab at creating an article on the soprano? Operissimo has a biography at operissimo. 4meter4 (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll start Janis Martin (soprano) later today. There are plenty of sources for her. If anyone wants to go ahead and start it now, go ahead and I'll pop 'round with additions if they're needed. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd redirect

It seems odd to me that La Gioconda is a redirect to La Gioconda (opera).4meter4 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, La Gioconda is the Italian name for the Mona Lisa, and I've seen it used fairly commonly in English sources as well, so it's not a completely goofy idea to add "(opera)". There's also a play by the famous Italian windbag, Gabriele D'Annunzio, called La Gioconda (no relation to the opera). But in that case there ought to be a DAB page (or hatnote) since the redirect accomplishes nothing in helping a reader who on the off-chance, might be looking for the painting or the play. Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the other uses for the name. I should have made myself clearer earlier and your last sentence reflects what I was trying to communicate. What I meant by odd is that DAB policy is not being followed here. La Gioconda (disambiguation) should only exist if another article exists at La Gioconda as the primary subject. So either we assert that the opera is the primary subject and leave a hat note to the dab page, or we should move the dab page to La Gioconda. I hope I am communicating more clearly now. lol4meter4 (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I notice there has already been a kerfuffle when La Gioconda was re-directed to La Gioconda (disambiguation) [8] and [9]. Bit of a tangle, there. Perhaps enquire at WP:WikiProject Disambiguation as to "best practice"? Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I left a note on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page with a link to this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Coming over from WP Disambiguation, I'd say that the current situation is incorrect.
Either the opera is the primary usage of "La Gioconda", in which case that should be the title of the article without "(opera)" and there should be a hatnote pointing to the painting,
or the opera is not the primary usage (and I tend to that view, as illustrated by the first comment in Talk:La_Gioconda_(opera)), in which case there needs to be a disambiguation page at La Gioconda albeit with only two entries. The incoming links to La Gioconda need some attention, as many of them seem intended for the opera page. La Gioconda (disambiguation) would then become a redirect to this dab page.
But other interpretations may vary! (Oh, and in case anyone suggests that the fact that the article name for the painting is Mona Lisa means that the painting cannot "compete" for primary usage of "La Gioconda" and the opera is thus the primary usage, see examples such as HP where the primary usage is Hewlett-Packard.) PamD (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks PamD. That was very helpful. I personally have no strong feelings one way or the other. Voceditenore's comments are compelling for moving the dab page to La Gioconda, and in many ways that simplifies internal organization around this topic (although it will be a headache fixing the many incoming links). On the other hand, I think it highly unlikely that many people typing in a search for La Giocanda will be looking for the painting or the rather obscure play by D'Annunzio. Most English speakers don't know the painting by its Italian name, and even if they do they probably would type Mona Lisa in anyway. Most people searching for La Giocanda are probably looking for the opera. Either way, though, I'm happy.4meter4 (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Undent for readability

A web search reveals many uses for the term, including a restaurant in NYC. I can easily see someone coming across the Italian name for the painting--the only sense I knew of before coming to this discussion--and typing it in here. Matchups 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think the opera should be asserted as the primary meaning. I think La Gioconda should be the DAB page, even if it'll be a pain to fix the incoming links. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems the consensus is to move La Gioconda (disambiguation) to La Gioconda. We will need an admin to do this.4meter4 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that consensus trumps usage; I've checked a number of incoming links to La Gioconda, and they all (but 1, which I changed to Mona Lisa), are intended for the opera. Even the Italian Wikipedia uses it:La Gioconda for the opera, although they also have a redirect it:La gioconda for the Monna Lisa whose article is named it:Gioconda. Methinks the current arrangement works just fine, although moving La Gioconda (opera) to La Gioconda would avoid the question which started this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Consensus agrees with useage, at least for September. 300 people on "La Gioconda", 248 on the disambiguation page, 82% of the readers searching on "La Gioconda" are not looking for the opera. (Probably more than 82%, given the direct links you noted). The opera page got over 3000 hits in the same period, so most readers are reaching it through external searches or internal links that don't use the redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved it, in accordance with the discussion above. Antandrus (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Antandrus. I just went ahead and fixed the incoming links.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

La clemenza di Tito - section Noted arias

I have been doing some work on this article, and I have a problem with this existing section heading, because some of the numbers included are not actually arias. I have noticed this section heading appears in various opera articles, so I don't want to change it without concensus. I propose Musical highlights as a possible alternative. Opinions pls.--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The "noted arias" formulation dates back to the early days. The current guidelines say "It is preferable to incorporate such highlights in the synopsis rather than list them out of context", so feel free to do so. (Some articles, e.g. Tosca, which is now a Featured Article, have a belt-and-braces approach and do both, with the heading "List of arias and set numbers" instead of "noted arias", but I personally am quite happy with just having opening lines, plus translations where necessary, only in the synopsis.) --GuillaumeTell 15:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've always thought that they are better incorporated into the text of the synopsis if someone has a libretto or score and can do that. If not, we have a variety of names for the section: "Musical numbers", "Noted arias", etc. I don't dislike "Musical highlights" since it clearly includes more than just arias, and I'm not keen on the use of the word "Numbers", especially when there is literally a set of numbers (1,2,3) alongside.
I'd like to see consensus on following the guidelines and incorporating (which gives them a much better context within the opera) and, if not incorporated (or until incorporated), then "Musical highlights" works for me. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The current guidelines seem clear enough on incorporating the arias rather than listing them separately. But... many of the synopses are underdeveloped and until they can be woven in, it is useful to the reader to have a list form. "Musical Highlights" is OK but I'd prefer "Arias and ensembles" as a title rather than making any judgement as to whether a piece is "Notable" or a "Highlight". Also, I'd like to emphasise once again, that the OP guidelines are just that. They are not rules to be enforced and virtually all of them were the result of "consensus" between just three or four people. Featured Articles should be treated separately. Where it is deemed appropriate by the central authors and the reviewers to include a complete list of "numbers", then it should be included. Frankly, I think such lists are helpful to the reader and they also provide an ideal section for including the soundclips without messing up the format of the rest of the article. See List of arias and set numbers in Tosca. I'll draft a new version of the guideline based on this discussion in a couple of days and post it here for consideration. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have incorporated the noted arias section of La clemenza di Tito into the synopsis. The synopsis is (fully) developed and no soundbites are available, so I see no reason not to incorporate. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_97&oldid=1190137130"