Opera Start‑class

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Is there a reference for the alternative name? It doesn't appear in the Elizabeth Bartlet article in Grove. --Kleinzach 15:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "token' one but there are multiple references to it as Joseph en Egypte. See [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this affiche for an 1816 performance in Calais. Re the section below, on this affiche it's described as "Opéra en 3 actes". Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if Joseph en Égypte is actually an abbreviation of Joseph, ou Jacob et ses fils en Égypte. I think this needs checking. Up to now we've never given alternative, informal names for operas. There are lots of them of course. --Kleinzach 23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that a "three act opera" is a genre, have they? Elizabeth Bartlet in Grove calls the opera a 'drame mêlé de chants', presumably following Méhul himself. Incidentally I don't think having a infobox here helps the article. As usual it's a just a trap for misinformation. --Kleinzach 15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Pougin, it was basically an an opéra comique, but given the biblical subject, a more "tasteful" description was used in the opening night affiche: "drame en trois actes, mêlé de chant" . Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's basically an opéra comique, but the policy has always been to follow the composer's designation, like Grove. The implication of the lead is that Méhul either didn't endorse the designation or he removed it later. What evidence is there for thia? Elizabeth Bartlet simply calls it a 'drame mêlé de chants' with no qualification.--Kleinzach 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP Opera talk page where, confusingly, debate on this is also being carried out:

[The Opera Project guidance] is explicit: 'the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, [....]'. Thus, the genre here is simply 'opera'; the number of acts (per the guidance) is not part of the genre. You can either specify the no. of acts in as separate line of the box (if you really must), or you can leave it in the text of the article.[...] --Smerus (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this at all. It makes nonsense of all the work done in the past to provide accurate descriptions in opera articles (and in this case the List of operas by Méhul). Where did this concept of opera as the genre and opéra comique (or whatever) as sub-genre come from? It's historically illiterate. --Kleinzach 22:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only citing the existing guidelines (with which this box seems inconsistent)! Let's discuss the guidelines in the proper place, of course.--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which.....a brief reading of this brief article showed, among other things, clunky writing, over- and under-linking, repetition of information (some of it false), and text under inappropriate headings. I have tried to correct these issues. It does suggest however, that work on the articles themsleves is rather more important and necessary that messing about with ancillary features.--Smerus (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Wild & Charlton's book. According to their entry the livret (Duval) has Drame mêlé de chants and the score (Méhul) has opéra, which I believe we can translate as "opera". The ms livret has the title Joseph en Égypte. Certain editions call it an opéra biblique. They also confirm that it was "inspired" by Omasis, a tragedy by Baour-Lormian. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we haven't translated 'opéra', but I'm also wondering about this. Is there more background here? Maybe we need a more detailed performance history? --Kleinzach 23:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with not translating opéra. It's close enough to English, that I don't think anyone should have trouble understanding it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was wondering if there are different versions? Perhaps with and without dialogue? --Kleinzach 04:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my quick look at contemporary sources yesterday, it appears that it may have also been performed as an oratorio without the spoken dialogue. Casaglia's documentation of the premiere [2] calls it the "first version", but doesn't list any subsequent performances of the opera, so not much help as to what or how many different versions there were. Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language performances are also mentioned. This is not the only opera with multiple genre descriptions. In the past we have simply noted the genre description of the first performance, unless we can detail different versions, in which case we obviously give the genre descriptions for each of them. --Kleinzach 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main contributor to this article is Folantin, who I believe is still infobox-sceptic. I've also done work on Méhul (List of operas by Méhul) and I think this box (in contrast to the lead) is confusing for the reader. Judging by the project discussion, Robert.Allen and Smerus are not pro-box either. So why is it here? Only because of the relentless pressure of one single editor? And what about Voceditenore? Does she support putting boxes on all the opera articles? I'd like to know if this is the beginning of a whole series of problems on these articles. I support removal. --Kleinzach 23:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support adding infoboxes to all articles, nor do I plan to add any myself, although I can still see a few cases where one might be useful. Since infoboxes of any kind are neither required nor prohibited, and given the reaction here, yes it probably will mean discussions like this on every page to which one is added or proposed. But on past form, attempts to add an infobox or propose one on the talk page (and the ensuing time-sink) will keep happening regardless of what the opera project has in its article guide. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Infobox redux for more, especially on the background. Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've seen this box in action. IMO, the unclear 'genre' field and the strange 'other title' field (for subtitles?) are problems. Also the 'premiere' field (hitherto unmentioned) confuses company and theatre (in contrast to the lead which explains perfectly clearly by the Opéra-Comique . . . at the Théâtre Feydeau). Kleinzach 08:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the wish to have more specific fields for company, theatre, structure, - please take these concerns to the template talk, but remember that KISS was a main design feature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the List of operas by Méhul in the navbox now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I support restoring Template:Méhul operas and removing Template:Infobox opera --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal per project discussions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal and restoration of Méhul template, as above.--Smerus (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain the infobox for the convenience of our readers and data reusers; refactor the Méhul template using {{navbox}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Have an infobox, but it's too early to vote, let's first see how it can be improved (see project talk). The navbox is at the bottom, - as not everybody who voted above seems to have noticed. Why have two navboxes? - Please: let's distinguish between the infobox for this particular opera, criticism of the template (at the template talk), and dislike of an infobox in general (at the project talk), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Clearly the consensus here is for removing the box. Gerda Arendt please remove the box from the talk page above, as per your promise that you would not use this tactic again after the complaints about the infobox you put on the Richard Wagner talk page. --Kleinzach 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done I have now replaced the infobox with the navbox — on the article. --Kleinzach 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now moved the infobox to user space, to please you - we had an edit conflict. (I promised not to one on a talk where it is disputed, such as a composer. I did NOT promise to show an alternative to a discussion I considered ongoing) - Did you notice the bottom navbox? Did the other voters? How much time do you allow for a discussion? As long as you get the result you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus can change. If it does the infobox can go back. If it doesn't the infobox should stay off the article. The editors of CM/Opera articles have always respected consensus. We hope you will as well. --Kleinzach 14:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four editors against and two in favour of the infobox is not a consensus, much less a clear one. Your disruptive removal, while the discussion is ongoing, should be reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer a discussion time of one to two weeks, a greater participation than six people, of whom four didn't even have the premises right, and the discussion of improvements BEFORE starting to vote. But I'm getting used to "consensus". Do we agree that the side navbox is redundant? (I better don't comment on it's beauty.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the side navbox is not redundant. Opera navboxes have always been placed in the upper right corner. --Kleinzach 15:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Opera navboxes have always been placed in the upper right corner" ^{[citation needed]}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bottom navboxes that I recall from memory: {{Richard Wagner}}, {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{Antonio Vivaldi}}, - there is much more room to freely arrange groups of works, writings, people connected to a composer if you can play with the full page than a slim corner. The one for Méhul was added in response to the valid argument by Robert:Allen that it would be difficult to add a new work to both infoboxes and side navboxes, if the works of one composer were not treated equally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • {{Richard Wagner}}, {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{Antonio Vivaldi}} are all navboxes of a different type — do i really need to point that out? --Kleinzach 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However as the two editors in support of a navbox have made absolutely no contribution to the article except as regards the box, that could also be taken into account.--Smerus (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • sorry, Smerus, could you point me please to the Wikipedia standard that stipulates the relevance to a consensus of the number and types of contributions an editor has made, when contributing to a discussion of this type (especially after wider contributions have been solicited on a project page)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia doesn't have regulatory 'standards', but respecting the opinions of contributing editors is regarded as a fundamental value. It's a theme of the long-running current AN/I started by, and focusing on, Andy Mabbett. --Kleinzach 22:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are all "contributing editors". We have pillars, polices and guidelines. If you wish to assert that one type of contributing editor is to be respected more than another, then you should have no problem citing one of them to support your claim. The rest of your comment is utter bollocks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a second navbox

Unfortunately a second navbox has been added [3]. Why do we need a second virtually identical box? Kleinzach 15:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't; as noted above, we just need the one, across the bottom of the article, in common with how they're done in the rest of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, Andy, could you point me please to the Wikipedia standard that stipulates that such boxes must be treated this way, as 'in the rest of Wikipedia'? - as I am aware of a great number which are in fact not treated in this way. Best,--Smerus (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example Template:WW2InfoBox. --Kleinzach 10:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph
opera in three acts by Étienne Méhul
The main actors of the original cast in costumes
Other title	Joseph en Égypte
Librettist	Alexandre Duval
Language	French
Premiere	17 February 1807 (1807-02-17) Opéra-Comique (Théâtre Feydeau), Paris

I suggest to restore the infobox, with the related image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. I do not want an infobox on it, for the reasons I have stated time and time again elsewhere. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OWN. Given that you have not showed reciprocal respect to others on "their" articles, I'm extremely tempted to see if a consensus can be reached. But it's probably not worth the bandwidth. Nonetheless, Folantin, should you EVER show up at an article someone else created where they want an infobox and you argue against one, trust me, we have this diff in history forever. Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut the personal attacks and unprovoked aggression and read Wikipedia:Tag team. Because if you and your squad EVER try to organise something like that here I'm going to re-open the Arbitration Case against you. The article history shows you have no previous interest in this article (unsurprisingly).

FYI I have spent the past 18 months/two years mostly working on new content and on improving articles I created in the hope I would be left in peace at least in those areas of Wikipedia. So far, so good. If I'm now going to be subject to harassment and destructive behaviour again, I'll know who to thank. Gerda at least has been polite. Please chill out and go and do something constructive elsewhere. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, as I say, this article is not worth the waste of bandwidth and you can own it for all I care. But let's not be a hypocrite, if you want to own this article, then respect the "ownership" of others. I watch Gerda's edits to help protect her from people who unjustly attack and try to play "gotcha!" with her. (I also keep an eye on Eric Corbett for similar reasons). So, all I am going to say on this topic is that I now hope we understand each other. And, incidentally, I have never been subjected to arbitration sanctions of any sort (other than those applied generally to all users/participants), I have never been blocked or restricted in any way on wikipedia, so if you want to go after me, I wouldn't make book on your chances of doing anything more than wasting your time. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Infobox ArbCom ended, Folantin has not once "attacked" Gerda or tried to play "gotcha". In fact, he has not interacted with her at all. He has not removed or even contested any infoboxes, let alone ones which she has added. He did not initiate or even comment in the two Arbitration Enforcement requests brought against her in the 18 months following the decision. Nor did he participate in, let alone oppose, her request to have her Arbcom restrictions lifted in May of this year. She has subsequently proposed several infoboxes on opera and musical composition articles. He has not participated in any of those discussions, let alone oppose her. This is the only one. Here, he politely pointed out that his opinion as the article's creator was that he opposed the infobox and pointed to his previous reasons above. And what happens? He is accused in advance of planning to "attack" Gerda and play "Gotcha", threatened that his comment will be used against him if he "EVER" [sic] opposes an infobox on an article he hasn't created, and gratuitously called a "hypocrite". Voceditenore (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Gerda did not notice that Folantin WP:OWNed this article. After the drama over the recent block of Eric Corbett, I've been a little twitchy. But Folantin most certainly made a lot of threats in the past, and he just did so again below, so this tiger sure hasn't changed his spots. But I can drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Voceditenore said. I have done my best to avoid such conflicts over the past 18 months, but obviously some users are incapable of dropping the stick. Also, Montanabw, you are in violation of the ArbCom decision which explicitly stated: "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general." You are also in violation of WP:TALK and WP:BATTLEGROUND, among other policies.

I have little time for editors who treat Wikipedia as a social networking site, so please go and play with your friends elsewhere. I have no appetite for such Wiki-drama; I just want to be left in peace to edit the articles which interest me, most of which I have created myself. Thanks again. --Folantin (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all, blame me, - when I suggested I failed to look up authorship and the discussions above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Folantin needs to be held to the same standard as others. He's one of the most mean-spirited people I've encountered in nine years of editing wikipedia, and his little snide "go play with your friends elsewhere" comment above is a perfect example of his approach. But I shall remember that Folantin owns his articles, and so it's not worth bothering him unless I'm ready to engage in mortal combat. If he wants to play in his own little sandbox all by himself, then he can. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]