User talk:Voceditenore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore.


“ On the whole, if you leave a message here, I'll answer it here to avoid too much to-ing and fro-ing. So check back later. If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I'll watch your page and reply as soon as I can. ”


ARCHIVES
Past topics I
Past topics II
DYKs etc.
Resolved notices

Contents

[edit] Center for Contemporary Opera‎

Thank you for your additions to this page. It is a much better article now. If this is a particular interest of yours, you may be interested in working on the article on American Opera Projects‎. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, contemporary opera is not a particular interest of mine, but I think this aspect of the subject shouldn't be neglected. I haven't got time to work on American Opera Projects‎ right now, but I did have a quick look at it. It looks rather copy/pasted to me and needs to have all that 'advert' phrasing removed. Better to have a short matter-of-fact stub that's in encyclopedic style plus some good references so that others can expand it. Otherwise, it just risks deletion. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
PS. That article also has way too many red links. They just make the subject look even more non-notable. Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rescuing Opera Theater of Lucca etc.

You've done a great job recreating this article. Perhaps I should explain my thinking on this and similar articles that have been created by 'single purpose accounts' as adverts/copy and paste etc? I'm tagging and prodding them in the expectation that either the creators will fix them or they'll be deleted. From my point of view they are not a priority (like CotM, SotM, Can you help? and items raised on the talk page) and not usually worth taking time to repair. Should I assume that you think differently - that they are worth saving? If so, maybe I should not mark them up - but instead refer them to you for rescue treatment? What do you think? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, my thinking is that we shouldn't neglect or necessarily give low priority to articles that deal with opera today (in its various manifestations). Otherwise, it gives the impression that the artform is completely fossilized. It also helps raise the profile of opera (and the Opera Project) to have articles on relevant festivals and schools, companies specializing in contemporary or new operas, etc.
The fact that an article was created 'disingenuously' and/or is a copy/paste job isn't automatically a good reason to completely delete it. I'd say to tag them for notability, referencing, cut/paste, etc. where relevant, and then give me a shout. If I think they're worth rescuing, I can fix them. If they seem hopelessly non-notable, I'll PROD them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but a lot of the articles are dross and after lengthy processing are deleted anyway - The Dreamers being the (possibly/probably) worthwhile exception in this case. Most of these articles are created in minutes and we subsequently spend days on them . . .
Having said that I'd be delighted to work with you on them as you suggest. I'm hope that we - and others - can get used to using the To do list. Perhaps if I go through the sections and then hand them on to you after I've worked on them? For example I can have a look at Articles needing expert attention and then let you know. Is that OK? --Kleinzach (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most of these articles are created in minutes and we subsequently spend days on them..." Yep. That's the curse of Wikipedia. Seriously though, every once in a while there is a nugget amidst the dross, so I try not to be too hasty about getting rid of stuff. Besides AfDs are also time-consuming, if they're done properly. Letting some opera articles of dubious notability lie around for a while doesn't do any real harm compared to the mountains of real dross there is on Wikipedia.
I keep forgetting about the OP "To Do" list. Once I get back in late April, go ahead and start reminding me of stuff you'd like me to take a look at if I miss it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Right. Incidentally there are some faster deletions procedures we can use. In addition to 'speedy delete' (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) there is also the 'Prod2' or double prod. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Thanks

Thanks for catching the Brindabella National Park copyright violations. That was a fine catch. Unfortunately, the article is a bit empty again. I guess it would be possible to add that stuff if one contacted WP:OTRS, but that would be a huge hassle. I'll talk to a friend I have in it, though, just to see if a letter can be sent to the Australian government. Again, thank you. --SharkfaceT/C 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The Australian government would have to release the text under GNU and given their copyright statement here, I'm pretty sure they won't. But why waste all that time asking for permission? Simply use the original page as your source of information and re-write the material in your own words. I rather doubt if Pavlen666 will. He did the same thing with Cal-Neva and promptly deleted both my warnings about it from his talk page (as well as comments from 2 other editors re the copying) [1], [2]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit unfortunate that some editors are adverse to criticism. I will add this article to my already extensive to do list, unless of course you wish to undertake it's overhaul. The information from the Australian government site will be helpful, it will just require a good deal of rewording. Thanks again for the heads up. --SharkfaceT/C 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWC Input

Thanks for the input on the AWC talk page. I strongly sympathize with the opinions of yourself and Friday and I understand that the project has really gone awry. In the coming weeks I hope to implement some major changes at the Award Center that will structure the page are make it closer to a real wikiproject. --SharkfaceT/C 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of my speedy-deletion tag

I just wanted to say thanks for removing the tag from one of my subpages. I was a little surprised that subpages could be nominated in the first place, and I thank you for correcting the situation. TheMoridian 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was happy to help. The editor who placed it has become quite problematic in his use of tagging, and I've now warned him twice about it. User pages sub-pages can be speedily deleted but only in very limited circumstances, none of which applied in this case. They cannot contain copyright text or images, blatant advertising or violations of {{Blp}} (biographies of living persons) policies. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:User:Pavlen666 and 'speedy delete' tagging

I'll have a talk with him. Thanks for letting me know. AlmightyClam 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Sympathies

I will shortly be notifying the sponsors of the challenges you suggest get axed at the Award Center. I am highly sympathetic to your complaints of junior editors jumping into editing Wikipedia with tags, AFD votes, etc. without taking the time to read the manual (and become familiar with the job they're undertaking). Sadly, I can say that I was once one of them and am still not immune from mistakes. I also understand the role of the Award Center in contributing and possibly aggravating the problem, and as such I have taken steps towards making the Award Center based around the mainspace rather than the behind-the-scenes bureaucracy. Whatever you do, just make sure that the improvement of articles always occupies the majority of your time on Wikipedia: everything else is just soul-destroying bureaucracy. Keep up the awesome work and don't get disheartened by this crazy place. We need to retain all the article editors we can. --SharkfaceT/C 19:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Globalecon/Tips

Good job on writing this! Sadly, it seems that neither student nor professor is taking any notice of what anyone on Wikipedia is telling them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, kudos. I'm mystified by the classes and professors lack of interaction too. --Bfigura (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas)

Do you think this needs revising with your more detailed explanation? Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it could probably use a rationale section and some slight rephrasing. I'll have a think about the wording once all the dust settles. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Austin (singer)

Great job with Elizabeth Austin (singer)! Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El-A-Kru

You convinced me to withdraw my AfD nomination for said article. Not entirely sure how withdrawing nominations work, but I think your edits will keep it safe from deletion. IRK!Leave me a note or two 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure how it works either, but I've seen your 'withdraw nomination' comment at the AfD discussion. I'm sure the closing admin will see it. You might want to move it to the top - right after your original nomination for greater prominence. But it probably doesn't matter that much. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Günther von Schwarzburg - quick question

Thanks for spotting my mistake and for expanding the article. It looks good. One question - I thought we were having separate sections for (inline, specific, reflisted) references and general sources? This came up recently on the project page here. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. We might write a new guideline on it, though i don't know if it should be a priority. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I just forgot to add the sub-heading. This is the way it is now. I normally do something like that if there are both footnote citations and works that were generally used for background information in writing up the article. If there are no footnotes yet, I normally use a bulleted list either labeled "Sources" or '"References". I save "External links" for official web sites, or online information that isn't in the article yet. I did see the discussion on OP. It might be good idea to write some guidelines re this. I especially dislike inline references that don't go as footnotes, just external links inside the article text. It's sort of a deprecated practice now because if the link breaks, no one can tell what the reference/source actually was and when it was accessed. Apart from that, I must admit, I don't get too fussed one way or another as long as the sources are clear. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree that clarity should be the objective. My only reservation about the way you've done the Günther article now is that it implies the refs are perhaps a bit more important than the 'other sources'. Re 'Asperta' I think that was another typo of mine. Grove have Asberta. As for history - or deviation from it - I'm not sure. The Grove article is quite short. Best with new (over the top?) sig. --Kleinzach 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the implications. I've now re-formatted per the MoS. I've discovered they use "bibliography" is a very idiosyncratic sense, i.e. basically synonymous with "Further reading" and not for texts actually used to support the article. The MoS suggests either having two separate sections for "Notes" and "References", or if the list of notes is relatively short, to combine the two into "Notes and references". I chose the latter. But feel free to separate them. The more I think about it, the better it might be to re-word the OP page on article and formats. I'll put my thinking cap on. Re your new sig... I'm sort of a Mies van der Rohe follower in those sorts of things.;-) I'm about to send you an email on another matter. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A two part ref section looks good. I agree about the idiosyncratic WP terminology, but I suppose it's not a huge problem. Re. project guidelines, I've just done a big switch around/consolidation and I'd be grateful for your opinion. Maybe a first step towards a possible Opera MoS? And adding a reference section would certainly be good. --Kleinzach 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Is your present signature minimal - or can we expect something something even more reduced in the future? --Kleinzach 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, it's a thought.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure whether you've seen this but

[3] and so on and so on. Someone else with a hidden agenda. --GuillaumeTell 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, I had seen it. I've just written a reply on the OP talk page, although I'd much rather be working on my Johann Georg Conradi article, sigh). Hopefully, he'll return to discuss it there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Oi, you haven't put your email into your preferences!

Only reason I noticed is that I usually ask this privately, but anyway...fancy a shot at RFA? I would be happy to nominate you. Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oi, Moreschi, I've sent you an email so you'll have my address if you ever need it. Thanks for the offer and your confidence. But... admin-ing would take too much time away from what I really enjoy – writing articles, rescuing worthy kittens from being drowned at AfDs, and helping out on the Opera Project. The latter can provide quite enough wiki-drama as it is. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plural of Azione teatrale?

Hi. I think we need a category for 'Azione teatrale'. What is the plural? I can't remember if both words have to agree . . . anyway your Italian is much better than mine. --Kleinzach 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. In Italian you need to pluralize both, i.e. azioni teatrali. Alternatively, you could call it something like "Azione teatrale compositions". I don't think the category should be created though, unless there is also an article explaining the term and its uses. And there are some anomalies. In the libretto of its original Vienna performance of Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice, and in the published score of 1763, it's called an azione teatrale, when it for all practical purposes it's an opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why I'm getting the Hmm, let alone a triple . . . The term seems legit., according to Oxford, for a form of opera. It appears on a number of articles. Likewise 'festa teatrale'. Sometimes these terms are explained differently in different books, but that's all the more reason to do an article and give examples. Most Anglo opera goers are completely ignorant about genres and we've made some good progress covering this on WP in a way which is more difficult in a traditional enclyclopedia. (By the way I am on record as saying there should be an explanatory article for each of the genre categories.) --Kleinzach 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The "hmmm" was just me thinking aloud about pluralizing foreign terms. Somehow using the straight Italian plural doesn't sound quite right and it's not really a loan word like "adagio" which can take an English plural ending. Perhaps it would better not to pluralize it. I notice the opera seria and opera buffa categories aren't pluralized. The term is legit enough, in the sense that it appears on the original scores and libretti (librettos?) etc. The only possible problem is that some those original sources don't seem to use the term very consistently themselves. And the definition used in Orfeo ed Euridice doesn't hold up either. Not all works originally labelled "azione teatrale" have dancing in them, e.g. Il sogno di Scipione nor are all of them on mythological subjects, e.g. L'isola disabitata. Here's what Grove says:
"Term coined by Metastasio to denote a species of Serenata that, unlike many works in this genre, contained a definite plot and envisaged some form of simple staging. The 12 works by Metastasio so described begin with Endimione (1721, Naples, set by Sarro) and end with La corona (1765, Vienna, set by Gluck); Mozart’s setting (1772) of his Il sogno di Scipione is one of the last examples of this short-lived subgenre. One of the most celebrated was L’isola disabitata (1752), first performed in Madrid with music by Bonno. Gluck’s Orfeo ed Euridice, to a libretto by Ranieri de’ Calzabigi (1762), was originally described as an azione teatrale."
Then there's there's overlap (or whatever one calls it) with "festa teatrale". In the article on Le cinesi the distinction is made between them by saying that unlike "feste teatrali", "azioni teatrali" weren't meant for specific court occasions, marriages, etc. But, Il sogno di Scipione was meant for the enthronement of an Archbishop and Ascanio in Alba, was written for the marriage of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and Maria Beatrice d'Este. Yet both are described as "azione teatrali". For more on the headache, see the first page of this article [4] ;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I think this is all par for the course. I'll start the article and perhaps you'd like to add to it what you have put above. It's all interesting info. Incidentally the genre articles probably all need going over. --Kleinzach 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angela Gheorghiu

Apropos Angela Gheorghiu and your changes to my additions: I have aimed to improve the piece by toning down the original article which apparently was dictated by her PR department. All of my writings have been from documented and reliable sources. There still remain several completely gratuitous remarks, which have little use in an objective article. The last, was directly from the Grammy.org association itself, but apparently inserted a less reliable surce. AG WAS NOMINATED IN 2001 not 2002 according to "The Recording Academy" BTW -- so it made no sense to replace my footnote with a less reliable source. I took the trouble to TALK to someone there regarding that fact BTW, and can supply his email address if you doubt that. As matters sound, the article is still an obvious fluff/gush piece by a FAN rather than an objective article. I appreciate your interest, but I will escalate the problems with your overly complimentary comments, if you continue in such a biased manner. I also had nearly THREE years of correspondence with AG, from which I can draw information and material that can be documented. And, if you doubt any of my assertions, check with operchic.typead.com, or Norman Lebrecht, who have been observers of AG for many years, and know much more about her in most ways than I.

BTW There is one other little tidbit at this time about AG: "The Recording Academy" (Grammys) verified that AG was never nominated other than in 2001. and, that she never won. Howver, for several years, she/Rolex have claimed a Grammy win on her homepage -- www.angelagheorghiu.com/en -- and The Recording Academy is proceeding accordingly -- probably a "cease and desist" order.. I'll let you be the judge of what to say about that, if anything, in the wiki article.Sidney Orr (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply I did not create that article. Nor did I write the "gush" you are referring to. Please take any concerns that you have about the article to the appropriate place - the article's talk page. However, note that your personal opinions of and speculations about the article's subject have no place whatsoever in the article, on its talk page, or on the talk pages of any of its editors. Nor does your alleged correspondence with either the article's subject or anyone else. Claims which cannot be verified by published sources will be removed from both the article and the talk page in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on the biographies of living persons. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before further editing. Voceditenore (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)