Portal talk:Opera/Archive 2
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
Audio
I've gone in and added some more Featured sounds. We now have probably all of the ones we really should, though I left out one or two I probably could have included, because I thought that they maybe weren't quite so good as some of the others, like the Wagner recording. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Bolding
The use of bolding of dates at subsections Opera news and In this month doesn't look great and should be removed back to just regular text as previous. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- (The bolding of the wikilinked/highlighted articles themselves is fine.) Cirt (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- De-bolding operation complete. Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Updates - April 2009
Additions
I've been expanding the available content over the last few days. This the current state of play:
- Introduction – we now have 11 opera house images in rotation. All are free-use.
- Selected article – we now have 18 in rotation. All but 4 are GA or FA.(Porgy and Bess, Royal Opera House, The Sorcerer and The Pirates of Penzance are B class) [Corrected now. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) • This is wrong: See below - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)]
- Selected biography – we now have
1213 in rotation. All are GA or FA. (latest addition FA Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky) - Selected quote – we now have
1424 in rotation. All are sourced and illustrated with free-use images. - Selected picture – we now have
810 in rotation. All are FP. - In this month – these have now been set up for all 12 months and will automatically change on the first of each month. All are illustrated with free-use images.
- Did you know – we now have 8 sets of 3 DYKs in rotation. All have appeared on the Main Page and have links cited to the DYK archive at Wikipedia:Recent additions. Each set is illustrated with a free-use image. Over time, I'll be creating further sets from this list (which I will also periodically update).
- Opera news – I've updated this with items from 1 Feb 2009 to 14 April 2009. This section can be tricky, because the items currently have to be sourced in the highlighted article. I'm going to ask Cirt's opinion as to whether it's OK to source the news on the news archive page, if it's not in the article yet, or is hard to work into the article. The link on the portal page to "Opera" on Wikinews now produces this. Not much of a loss, since there are very few opera-related items on WikiNews,[1] and they're all old. It's clearly not a topic of interest to the cub-reporters.
- Opera topics – I've added links to articles on "Opera voices"
- Voceditenore (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- First off, let me congratulate you on your great work - you've really managed to pull this portal back around.
- Secondly, a few minutiae: Two more opera images (File:John Phillip Sousa - De Wolf Hopper - El Capitan1.png, File:Maritana - Nov 22 1845 Illustrated London News.png) have become FP since the last update to the above section, giving us at least 10 FPs to use (which is good: We need ten =) ). However, note The Sorcerer and The Pirates of Penzance - they are NOT yet GAs, they are B class, and if you're concerned about too much emphasis on G&S, they're the ones that ought to go. (You presume a bit too much about the G&S project: There's like, two or three of us who are really active, and my health has been pretty poor for about two years. I think we've done very well, but we don't have every opera up to GA yet =) ) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't even check the G&S articles. I assumed they were all at least GA since Cirt had added them. ;-) Nevermind. We can leave them for now and update with other more opera-y ones later. Voceditenore (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I remember right, a strong B-class is considered good enough for a featured portal, but it has to be really strong. Probably a good idea if we try and only use B class if we have to, though, for diversity reasons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't even check the G&S articles. I assumed they were all at least GA since Cirt had added them. ;-) Nevermind. We can leave them for now and update with other more opera-y ones later. Voceditenore (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"New content" section
Since no one has objected, I'm going to ask Cirt to add a "New content" section to showcase quality work from the OP monthly collaborations. I would suggest keeping this section static and manually changing it from time to time. The articles for this section needn't be formally assessed as B class, but they should be reasonably well referenced and not have any clean-up tags on them. Once it's created, I'm going to put Pelléas et Mélisande in there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd hold fire on Pelléas until at least the end of the month. I'm still working on it. --Folantin (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okey-dokey. There's other stuff we can use in the meantime. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is "new content" quite the right word? Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), for instance, was started in 2003. Maybe "improved" would be better. (However, in all seriousness, Pelleas and Melisande is quite obviously well on its way to FA, and when Folantin's done, it'd be a trivial effort to push it over the last hurdle. I'd suggest that WP:FAC would be a more appropriate place for it to go.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Since Folantin would like to hold off until he's finished and since Pelléas et Mélisande is already a very strong B class, perhaps we should add it to the rotating "Selected article" section when he's happy with it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is "new content" quite the right word? Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), for instance, was started in 2003. Maybe "improved" would be better. (However, in all seriousness, Pelleas and Melisande is quite obviously well on its way to FA, and when Folantin's done, it'd be a trivial effort to push it over the last hurdle. I'd suggest that WP:FAC would be a more appropriate place for it to go.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okey-dokey. There's other stuff we can use in the meantime. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Re the title... I think Shoemaker's right about it not quite fitting expansions/revamps similar to Pelléas. I'm not sure what else we could call it. "Recent additions" has the same problem. Another alternative, is to use the "New content" for decent recently created articles that come from the OP Composer of the Month collaborations. They tend to be on relatively unknown operas, which makes them interesting, and their appearance in the portal, could encourage further expansion. Examples from the March CoM are Mese mariano and Déjanire. Yet another alternative is not to have it all for now. But then something has to be done about the big empty space currently in the portal beneath "In this month". Thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Spacing is the last thing to worry about. If there is a little space somewhere, not the biggest concern. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but what do you think of the alternative suggestion re recently created articles? Voceditenore (talk)
- If it's fairly static until it's edited, could we make so that you choose the section's title when you set up the article? Then we could use "New content" "Selected recent collaboration" "Newly improved content", etc. based on whatever fits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hrmmm, perhaps something much more simple and more dynamic, like an updated list of recently created articles (5, 10, something like that), similar to q:Main Page - Section: "New pages" ? Cirt (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the purpose is to allow the regular content improvement and creation drives at the Wikiproject to have an outlet on the portal, so that wouldn't really serve the desired purpose. The Opera Wikiproject has managed such drives for a couple years now, with no signs of slowing, so it's quite maintainable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Still, before creating this section I'd like to decide on a name for it, and its purpose and how it would work. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. One possibility might be to use it just as a "free" section - Major anniversaries could be celebrated in it, like the Handel 250, the Purcell 350, and so on, and when it's not doing that, it could showcase new or improved content. We could call it "Showcase", which is ambiguous enough to fit anything we'd want to do. The Wikiproject is quite active, so I don't foresee stagnation anytime soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again I'd rather we decide on a set idea for it instead of all these loose things or a catchall, which is definitely not the best way to go. I guess we can set this aside for now until a consensus emerges on this. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Cirt, on this one. Let's wait a bit until we have a consensus. I don't think a loose catch-all with a randomly changing raison d'être is the way to go. If anything, I think Cirt's suggestion for a list of recently added or expanded articles is the best. It's simple to update, and would include the products of recent collaborations. Take a look at the sample here. But, there's time to think this through and perhaps try to get some input from other OP members. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Again I'd rather we decide on a set idea for it instead of all these loose things or a catchall, which is definitely not the best way to go. I guess we can set this aside for now until a consensus emerges on this. Cirt (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. One possibility might be to use it just as a "free" section - Major anniversaries could be celebrated in it, like the Handel 250, the Purcell 350, and so on, and when it's not doing that, it could showcase new or improved content. We could call it "Showcase", which is ambiguous enough to fit anything we'd want to do. The Wikiproject is quite active, so I don't foresee stagnation anytime soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Still, before creating this section I'd like to decide on a name for it, and its purpose and how it would work. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the purpose is to allow the regular content improvement and creation drives at the Wikiproject to have an outlet on the portal, so that wouldn't really serve the desired purpose. The Opera Wikiproject has managed such drives for a couple years now, with no signs of slowing, so it's quite maintainable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hrmmm, perhaps something much more simple and more dynamic, like an updated list of recently created articles (5, 10, something like that), similar to q:Main Page - Section: "New pages" ? Cirt (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it's fairly static until it's edited, could we make so that you choose the section's title when you set up the article? Then we could use "New content" "Selected recent collaboration" "Newly improved content", etc. based on whatever fits. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but what do you think of the alternative suggestion re recently created articles? Voceditenore (talk)
Pictures
I've added a Le Cid featured picture - I presume no-one's going to object to Massenet. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured portal?
If we wanted this to be a featured portal, what's left to do? It does seem that we've at least managed to get all the content sorted fairly well - selected articles and biographies are all pretty solid, the Selected pictures are, in fact, all featured pictures, and I think the sounds are all featured too, though there may be one or two that aren't. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm, actually things are looking pretty good, as the portal is, in its current state. I will give it another once-over. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be worthwhile getting each section to have an even 20 (or more) rotating entries first, if possible. :) Cirt (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. There are only 8 DYK pages in rotation at the moment. I'm going to bring them up to 20 in the next few days. We're OK for Quotes (currently 25 in rotation). Also, I need to expand the remaining 11 months from 4 to 8 dates for the "In this month" section. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree on the In this month. Currently working on the DYKs... Cirt (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- We only have 11 opera house images for the intro photo rotation. Shall I work on getting that up to 20 while you work on the DYK's? Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is actually a lot. Usually I go with 5 for that sort of thing, see for example Portal:Norway/Intro/Image. But - if there are enough different images and Opera houses for it, sure. Cirt (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- We only have 11 opera house images for the intro photo rotation. Shall I work on getting that up to 20 while you work on the DYK's? Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agree on the In this month. Currently working on the DYKs... Cirt (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. There are only 8 DYK pages in rotation at the moment. I'm going to bring them up to 20 in the next few days. We're OK for Quotes (currently 25 in rotation). Also, I need to expand the remaining 11 months from 4 to 8 dates for the "In this month" section. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be worthwhile getting each section to have an even 20 (or more) rotating entries first, if possible. :) Cirt (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay we have 20 sets of 3 DYK hooks per set. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- ...I'm sorry, I don't think I can get up to 20 images in the short term. Featured pictures are a lot of work, and I've dealt with all the low-hanging fruit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think currently all the pictures in that section are of WP:FP quality, so we could add a few more that are not featured but are representative of the topic Opera. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only one that isn't an FP here is an FP on commons. (File:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh okay, in that case I will change the criteria, and the name to Featured. :) Cirt (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Done [2] [3]. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Heh. If I had known I could get away with mere selection, I wouldn't have had to do that major push that got us four new FPs and various other high-quality operatic stuff =) Probably for the best you hadn't said that earlier. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only one that isn't an FP here is an FP on commons. (File:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think currently all the pictures in that section are of WP:FP quality, so we could add a few more that are not featured but are representative of the topic Opera. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this caption? I don't think I've got it very right, but the thing is, it's more spectacle than plot, so I'm not sure what to say. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictures
If this image gets featured when I'm done with the cleanup (and presuming that Jephtha (Handel) is near enough an opera for our purposes), would it be appropriate to link it and the operatic treatment on our portal, even though the image was intended to illustrate Flavius Josephus' retelling of the bible?
In short, are featured images that illustrate source material appropriate for use here to link to the operas themselves? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Opera FP approaches!
Not one of mine, but
...will make an excellent addition when it passes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's passed. First draft of the caption is here: Portal:Opera/Selected picture/13 - I always find it difficult to shrink things down. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I really should restore his recording of Vesti la giubba. I kinda went off sound editing when Featured sounds died - we could try and revitalise it again. And it'd help a bit, sinc eI've kind of gone off the Featured Picture process due to rampant idiocy there. (Victorian images should be removed from articles on Victorians for being too Victorian my hairy arse...) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
New selected article
I've just added Portal:Opera/Selected article/21. Johann Strauss II was recently promoted to GA. Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoops! I mean selected biography - here 'tis: Portal:Opera/Selected biography/14 Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, good. We can use more biographies. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Truncated images in "Selected articles"
The images from the following "Selected articles" show up fine on the archive page. But when they are rotated into the portal, the bottom half of the image disappears:
- Portal:Opera/Selected article/4 (Orfeo ed Euridice)
- Portal:Opera/Selected article/5 (The Fairy-Queen)
- Portal:Opera/Selected article/10 (Trial by Jury)
- Portal:Opera/Selected article/19 (Boris Godunov (opera))
Has anyone else noticed this? Can it be fixed? Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, they all seem fine to me. Cirt (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I wonder if it has to do with the type of browser. I use Internet Explorer 7. I'm going to ask some other editors who use IE7 if they notice it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone else on the Opera Project who uses IE7 has the same problem with the images that I do. See here. It's very puzzling. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've talked with Cirt, and, in response to that, started setting this up. I haven't taken it live at the moment, but if everyone's happy, add your names, then we can update the date and take it live. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa!;-) I wasn't going to add my name as a co-nominator yet, as I wanted to ask a question about the colour scheme. One of the criteria for an FP is:
- "The colours are coherent and complementary, and do not detract from the content."
- The bright purple may be a bit garish or distracting to some. Also, it's so dark that the blue link for Show new selections is barely visible. Does it matter? I'd be interested in others' opinions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not really a major issue enough to hold off the WP:FPOC, however feel free to browse some color schemes at at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals, User:RichardF/Palettes and Portal:Box-header - and let me know what you think? Cirt (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Better? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit boring and bland now. Could we try something with a bit of an orange-yellow-tan theme? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying for the blue color from File:Operalogo.svg. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia already uses a lot of blue, however. It all blends in a bit. I've tried implementing a sunny, bel-cantoish colour scheme. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying for the blue color from File:Operalogo.svg. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's a bit boring and bland now. Could we try something with a bit of an orange-yellow-tan theme? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Better? Cirt (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not really a major issue enough to hold off the WP:FPOC, however feel free to browse some color schemes at at User:RichardF/Palettes/Portals, User:RichardF/Palettes and Portal:Box-header - and let me know what you think? Cirt (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- The bright purple may be a bit garish or distracting to some. Also, it's so dark that the blue link for Show new selections is barely visible. Does it matter? I'd be interested in others' opinions. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- We can always change the time part of the sig once we're all on board - just seemed easier to start it moving forwards, so we can edit the discussion, and so on and so forth. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had already listed it at WP:FPOC, as it looks up to par at this point. The color can easily be adjusted, if need be. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I quite like "sunny bel canto" theme. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I had already listed it at WP:FPOC, as it looks up to par at this point. The color can easily be adjusted, if need be. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
New FP
Portal:Opera/Selected picture/14. It's an FP on Commons. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think this one ought to go. (Portal:Opera/Selected article/12). I had mentioned this before somewhere in the archives. Beijing opera is not part of the Western tradition. It's a completely different genre. It would be like having Rock opera there. We need to find a replacement article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I moved Carmen from slot 20 to slot 12, then reduced the random portal component to 19. This removes Beijing opera. Between the Purcell work, Pelleas et Melisande, and a few others, I have no doubt we can get a worthy replacement in the short term. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Manon Lescaut and Pagliacci
Think I have a handle on FPs of these =) More in a couple weeks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've also nearly finished one of Falstaff, though am having trouble with the upload. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
3 new FPs
Today I added: Portal:Opera/Selected picture/15, Portal:Opera/Selected picture/16, and Portal:Opera/Selected picture/17. All are FPs on Commons. Voceditenore (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Good news and bad news
Well, I think I can get more opera FPs. Some of them are Gilbert without Sullivan, and others are sullivan without Gilbert. That counts as not Gilbert and Sullivan, right?
Ohh, and there's also Falstaff Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've just added another FP, Portal:Opera/Selected picture/19 (related to Tosca). The Falstaff would be great. But I'd rather not have any more G&S or S or G images for now. The portal is still quite skewed to that area, which represents a tiny fraction of the operatic repertoire. Depending on the rotation, it's possible for the Selected Picture, Article and Biography all be G&S related. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Image in portal bars
For your information: Template talk:Portal#Image for Portal:Opera. Giovanni Eteronni (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC).
Today's portal version
Today I would like to make two changes to the portal features, but wouldn't know how. Selected article: "Twice Through the Heart is a musical work by the English composer Mark-Anthony Turnage, variously described as a dramatic scena, as a monodrama, as a song cycle": it needs at least a full stop at the end, better some "and" before the last item, and how about some connection to opera? DYK: Three operas, two of them the nice quirky ones by Smerus. How about spreading them a bit, and have more variety, such as one opera, one singer, one other (librettist, conductor, company ...)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)