User talk:Voceditenore/Archive 9

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

still more past topics...

Tornrak

Hi, I'm actually still working on this article. So it ought to be better than Start in a few days when I put it in for dyk. I've more or less exhausted what I could find on the web and in the Oxford/Grove site (apart from a comment saying Ashman's production was praised) and am now processing the WNO programme book. The cast list will be a pain. The book lists the WNO cast and not the Banff one, though the female lead is mentioned in the article and the extended voice coach Richard E. Armstrong presumably played the same parts in Banff as he did in Cardiff. It will be a pain working out the voice ranges. DO you think there's any point in contacting Metcalf's website for these details?

BTW do you regard it as worth bothering with the set in Canada/England/at sea and sung in English/Inuktitut categories? --Peter cohen (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Re the rating, I always put start unless it's a stub. Feel free to change it when you think it's more than that. The OP never got round to systematic formal assessment, mainly because the criteria worked out were so complicated, and the members tend to be more writing than process oriented.

It might be worth emailing the web site. I've never tried that myself. For the premiere cast, I'd use the WNO cast as that was the official fully-staged premiere of the final version. You can always add the Banff cast if/when you get it. There are double tables available for situations like that. As for the voice types, in situations like this, I just use the voice types of the singers who created the roles. If the WNO programme doesn't give them, try googling each singer. As for those "set in..." categories I never bother with 'em, but there's no harm in it. As for the language, it's presumably mostly English, so I'd put it in Category:English-language operas and Category:Multiple-language operas unless a very significant proportion of the libretto is in Inuktitut. I'd never heard of this opera. You learn something new everyday on Wkipedia.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have emailed JM. Given his history with Banff, he should have a very good chance of knowing those involved in the performances there. As for language, the WNO programme has nearly four pages of parallel Inuktitut and English text. I would guess that around a third of the first act (of two) is in it.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poppea recordings history

I have written & posted a "recordings history", per your talkpage suggestion. It probably needs a couple more citations, and may be a bit long. The chief thing I want to avoid is appearing to make personal judgements about these recordings, or seeming to make recommendations. Could you read the section and let me know how you think it might be improved?

Nicolini, E

Dear Voceditenore, thanks for your message. If indeed you have access to Grove online, could you possibly just glance at Ernesto Nicolini in it? Wikipedia has an article which acknowledges ONLY the Elizabeth Forbes authored article as its source, and it would be helpful to me to know if this (and perhaps one or two others like it) may have similar problems to those you have been dealing with. I'd be very grateful for your advice. Cheers, Eebahgum (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was one line in it that was virtually a verbatim copy from Grove. I removed it. The rest seems OK. Let me know if you come across any others that give concern which aren't already listed here and I'll check them out. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Repertory Opera

Scott Andrew Hutchins, the creator of the page, is a regular performer with BRO! SingingZombie (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, but you should have notified him that the article was up for deletion. Also, conflict of interest and problematic edits are not valid reasons for deletion. The only applicable criteria in this case is that the subject is non-notable. If your nomination statement doesn't explicitly state that, then I doubt if the discussion will go anywhere. Voceditenore (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You're saying it's OK with wiki to post articles about the poster's personal stuff? You realize that Hutchins is using wiki as a BILLBOARD, to ADVERTISE a project in which he has a personal stake?

How far does it go? I have several writers in my family. Can I post favorable articles about their books and their status, in order to increase my family's royalty-income? How about my own book, when it comes out? Can I publicize it on wiki? Please advise. SingingZombie (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not OK in the larger sense, but Articles for deletion is not the place to address that issue, unless the entire article is "advertising without relevant content", which is not the case here. Once an article is created, whether or not it stays is determined not by the putative motives of the creator, but by whether the article's subject (Brooklyn Repertory Opera) is sufficiently notable to merit an encyclopedia entry, whether sufficient sources can be found to verify the claims made in the article, or whether the material is already covered (or should be covered) in another article. (See Reasons for deletion.) There is a valid argument to discuss in this case, i.e. that the subject does not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria, but if you persist in giving editing disputes and vanity as your only arguments for deletion, you won't get anywhere. If you have serious concerns about an editor's conflict of interest or want clarification, the appropriate forum is the Conflict of intrerest noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Harrison images

Responded here - Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gardoni

Great pictures, thanks! Now looking for snippets by google. Eebahgum (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have just found your article on La Tadolini - for which many thanks and congratulations. That's the stuff. Eebahgum (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raise you one

I see your yet another prima donna, and raise you one. - ! Eebahgum (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Richard Versalle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Note: I always leave approvals to others. Art LaPella (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My appreciation

Replied here - Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: Music competitions prize-winners

Hello Voceditenore!! Several categories related to music competition winners are being targetted, and I think it would be useful that you give your opinion regarding the neccesity (or not) of these categories and maybe later help proposing changes to the present guidelines (music awards and prizes). Category:Primrose International Viola Competition prize-winners has been already deleted. The categories proposed for deletion are #Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, #category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition, #Category:Operalia, #Category:Ferruccio Busoni International Piano Competition and #Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Il ritorno d'Ulisse - peer review

The expanded article has been lodged for review at WP:PR. If you have any comments or suggestions I'd be pleased to have them, either at PR or on the article's talkpage. Many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points

I'll wait a while before commenting over there as it has seemed as if I am trying to "direct" the discussion or present some sort of fait accompli by commenting too often. Neither could be further from the truth: I am merely looking to resolve once and for all this ridiculous dispute about utter trivia. I agree with your essential points, though. Yours --Jubilee♫clipman 10:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

Your recent behaviour and failure to assume good faith and your equally pointless edit summaries make you look like an old fart. Yes its me again. You are still an old fart and so is your friend Kleinzach. All I wanted is a way to root out the missing articles from Italian wikipedia and work towards adding them. I would have agreed to move the list to my user space as maybe a nav tmeplate for biographies is not really a good idea. But above all its the continual failure to assume good faith and your control freak behaviour over anything related to your project which your 400 year old brain doesn't approve of is the most concerning. And don't come warning me and even consider visiting my talk page as I'll blow your old fart right back at you. Now we have an even uglier and pointless red link in the history of every italian tenor article because of your haste. I'd have been happy to discuss it beforehand and delete it. Your behavior was completely rash and unnecesary and because of it we are stuck with terribly ugly looking page histories. Good one, I hope you are proud of it. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a problem with a red link in the edit history. Better that than that ill-thought out template in the actual article. Likewise, my criticism of an unsuitable template, mass added to articles with no discussion, does not assume bad faith, merely bad judgement. You are, however, entirely entitled to your opinions both about me and the template. Rest assured I won't visit your talk page with civility warnings. Your comments above speak for themselves, volumes in fact. Voceditenore (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ill thought template" was merely a way to work towards getting those missing articles from Italian wikipedia started over the next few days. And I take such edit summaries as a personal attack against me also, except your now permanently remain in public view in over 50 articles. We have navigation templates for most topics on here, and there never has to be a "consensus" for what one editor wants to do to expand the project. You did not so much as even tell me that you though they were a bad idea beforehand but systemtically reverted as if they had been edited by a vandal. I'd have been happy to move the list into my mainspace beforehand. But you repeatedly act on here as if you own the project, you did over the stub sorting in the past and most things that come your way. You do not own these articles. Above all its the failure to assume good faith and to consider why I made the template and that it was intended towards a good purpose, even if for biographies a nav template is probably not a good idea. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 00:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and there never has to be a "consensus" for what one editor wants to do to expand the project." Really? That's quite contrary to the message sent out here. I'm sorry if you consider my criticism of the template and the way it was mass added to articles as a personal attack against you. But you seem to have dished it out quite plentifully in return now, so I suggest we just move on. Voceditenore (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Template:WPSS-cat is a stub category and proposal. A navigation template is something entirely different and are made by editors everyday on their own initiative who believe they help connect articles together and do not need prior discussion. Agreeably categories can serve this so in this circumstance it was not a good idea, but I don't like the way you went about responding to them, even if you thought they were ugly and redundant. No use arguing this now as time would be better spent on article work, but please try to be a little less overbearing over edits you disagree with and consider that the "offender" might actually be happy to discuss any complaints or issues you have prior to a conflict and might have actually agreed with you. This would save a lot of unneccesary ill feeling and conflict which could have been avoided in this circumstance had you patiently visited my talk page or Ser Amantio;s first and said "look I think this template is ugly and redundant can you please self revert it?" Regards. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I did leave a message to that effect both on Ser Amantio's talk page and earlier on the now deleted Template talk:Italian tenors. Your response on the latter page in which you called me and another editor this, indicated to me that I might as well go ahead and delete them myself. But like a I said, you're entitled to your view of things. Voceditenore (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you could work with my rather than against me, I'd be happy to transwiki a few every day or two. Nothing that we both can't handle but these articles do need starting and I don't see anybody else bothering to do so. I could use your assistance in checking and proof reading them and fixing any errors. I don't want to create a huge mess for the opera project or viewed like that but I really think these articles ought to be transwikied and improved later uopn the initial source cited. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, no one is "working against you". All I did was remove a highly inappropriate template from a series of articles and I explained my reasons. Nor am I saying that you shouldn't transwiki articles, although I have repeatedly pointed out to you and Ser Amantio di Nicolao (e.g here, here, here, here, and here) the necessity for referencing them properly, especially BLPs, and requested that you tag their talk pages with {{WikiProject Opera}} so they don't fall under the project's radar. I go through AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult daily when I'm not travelling. I tag for clean-up where appropriate, fix a few glaring errors, add appropriate cats, and banner the talk page. I'm still finding transwikied articles with no or inadequate references and/or without the required attribution on the talk page, e.g. [1], [2]. [3]. Just those basic fixes are very time-consuming.

You're not creating a "huge mess" for the opera project, but by not taking just a few extra minutes to appropriately banner and categorize the articles yourself, many of them are going to languish for a long time in a substandard state. I'll list the transwikied articles needing clean-up on the Project talk page for members who might have some spare time to go over them more closely. We are an active, but small project, and all of us have other vital articles that we're developing (many of which had to put on hold in the scramble to fix the unreferenced opera BLPs). The transwikis may not get attention straight away. But we'll do our best. One suggestion for choosing which articles to transwiki (rather than working through a particular category, where many of the subjects are quite minor figures), would be to check the red links at Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics, The Record of Singing, and The Opera Corpus. These are all notable topics and ones which as a project we would prioritize. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message from WikiProject Children's literature

I have recently proposed some extensive changes to the layout of project pages in WikiProject Children's literature. The changes can be viewed in my sandbox, and are summarised on this talk page. The proposed changes include major reformatting of the main project page, the creation of five new project sub-pages, and moves to two existing sub-pages. Please look over these proposals, and join the discussion. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deja vu?

Didn't want to make a public issue of this, but I can't see any way to send it privately. Those articles imported from Italian Wikipedia were all created by the same user, who has logged a surprisingly high number of edits since the first under that name last August: if I read the statistics right, more than 500 in the past four days and well in excess of 18,000 total. Given the "copy from elsewhere" modus operandi, do we need to worry about reincarnation of our old friend Nrswanson?

PS: Taking your instructions supra at their word, I replied to your kind message of the turn of the year on my own talk page. In case you missed my response there, thanks! Drhoehl (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops--should have looked at your exchange with said user a few sections above before posting this. I guess that answers the question.... Drhoehl (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Daisies copyvio cleanup

Hi. When convenient, can you check Virginia (Mercadante) against Grove? I've verified that the synopsis section is not too close a translation, but cannot view that source. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRG. I checked against the Grove article on Mercadante cited in the WP article, and there's no copyvio. Apropos the larger issue. I have a feeling that this editor is back under at least one new username, but from what I've seen making very useful contributions with no copyvio so far. I'll email you the details. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) When I get back to my home base, I'll mark that one resolved. And I appreciate your keeping an eye out for new issues. We're lucky to have you! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Hi, Voceditenore,
Thanks for the link, which exposes the problems, and for all the work you and Moreschi have put in on this. I like to keep my distance from rows if possible!! For this reason I never joined any wikiprojects, where factions and enthusiasms seem sometimes to arise. Thinking (as I do) of the WP:IMPERFECT principle, long a cornerstone of Wikipedia, there will often be a transitional stage in which partially-formed articles seem to depend heavily on one or very few sources, while one waits for others to build on new referenced material from elsewhere. But I know that you and Moreschi are experienced enough to make the needful appraisals and judgements of this in relation (especially) to Grove, which I can't or don't access and of course if the copyright violation problem is as you say then you are right to address it. Certainly NRS had more serial identities than is really justifiable even under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, though he seems often to have kept them ringfenced. I only hope that he hasn't fallen victim to some sort of factional in-fighting. I suspect that serial identity is often used as a means of escape from other persistently uncongenial editors. Thoughts of a dull brain in a dry season... Best wishes, and renewed thanks Eebahgum (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an imperfect article is fine by me (or one dependent on only one source), but infringing someone else's copyright is another. It's both illegal and dishonest and can land Wikipedia in all sorts of legal trouble. I can assure you that I and his fellow editors in the area have all bent over backwards to warn him about the copyvio situation for the last two years, unfortunately to no avail. Incidentally, it was more than Grove. Many other sources were copied verbatim, sometimes with false references rather than the real source.

Some of the ringfenced socks were used specifically for "vote-stacking" in talk page disputes and AfD discussions. Before he was banned for sockpuppetry last April, at least one other administrator (who did not edit in the area at all) had given him a second chance re his sockpuppeting/vote-stacking in a centralized discussion without bringing an SPI. But unfortunately, he later tried it again in another talk page dispute with yet another sockpuppet. It was only in our recent copyvio investigations that the final round of sock-puppets came to light, one of whom had 13 articles deleted or stubbed due to verbatim copying from Grove. It's a great pity. Amidst the carnage, he had made some very fine and helpful contributions, but there you have it. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for helping me to understand the situation: I quite accept all you say, and I'm sorry you've had so much trouble. Now I am thinking of tackling Italo Gardoni (without Grove!!): maybe you will polish it with the Grove cloth afterwards. In all goodwill, Eebahgum (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! It's amazing we still don't have an article on him. I only recently got access to the online Grove specifically to help with the copyvio clean-up.

I prefer to use a variety of sources, including contemporary accounts when doing a bio. Makes 'em a lot more interesting. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VdT, just a footnote to the above: I have reworded my note of thanks, not wishing in any way to be provocative towards you and others who have had to deal with the problem. I have no quarrel with your course of action. (same message to Kleinzach). Eebahgum (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigurður Bragason

Hi there! I notice you recently edited Sigurður Bragason — I have just removed Category:Icelandic composers from this article as it doesn't seem to mention him composing, but please revert this if I am wrong. Best wishes! --Deskford (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Herbert

The problem has been mostly remediated. I found a Victor Herbert expert who is helping. I have a little more work to do on the article, but there is no more plagiarism problem. Our friend's citations to the Gould reference were mostly BS. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think now the Victor Herbert article is properly referenced and could not be said to have a copyvio problem. Please check the opera sections, as I've checked everything else pretty carefully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinando de' Medici

Dear Voceditenore, could you take a look and keep an eye on Ferdinando (III) de' Medici. Improve my english or change the wording. Thx. Taksen (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied here. Voceditenore (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Voce...., your message surprises me, because I have not been adding to Ferdinando since a week. I noticed last week we were both working on the article, but it did not become problematic. Thanks for your consideration anyhow. In between I got into trouble on G.F. Handel. Some Australians dont like my English, and I am not impressed by the quality of the article. Can you give me some advice? All the best, greetings from Amsterdam Taksen (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taksen, yes it's taken me several days to get back to you after the Christmas celebrations. As for the Handel article, my advice would be to discuss any future changes on the talk page first. The article does need a lot of improvement, but it's better to plan it out first with the other editors. Having said that, some of them were quite unnecessarily rude in their comments. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I've beaten you to the punch on Annibale Fabri, but I stumbled across your subpage and it looks like you have a source for that which I don't. That list of roles created would be good, and I couldn't figure out whether his Rome appearance in 1711 was him appearing in drag as a tenor, or him appearing in drag as a boy (likely soprano, I guess). He'd be what, fourteen at the time, so quite plausibly his voice wouldn't have broken yet. Grove was rather vague on that: do you have anything more definite? With Baroque opera, who knows :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten me to the punch, eh? Humphhh! ;-) Anyhow, this source claims that the role in the Caldara intermezzo (Vespetta e Pimpione) was for an alto, so presumably his voice hadn't changed yet. There's tons of stuff on Fabbri in Google books but you have to do searches on both spellings of his name. Fabri and Fabbri. For the list of premieres he's sung in I was using:

Casaglia, Gherardo, "Annibale Pio Fabbri" and "Annibale Pio Fabri", Almanacco Amadeus, 2005. Accessed 10 January 2010 (in Italian).

The list on my draft page is by no means complete. I might add some stuff to the article in the coming week, if that's OK. Just let me know if you're also working on it, so we don't duplicate the lavoro. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thanks. I'm probably done there, you go ahead and knock yourself out :) Moreschi (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from wiki

Hi Voceditenore. I saw your message on my talk page, but I still don't get what you have to do in order to copy and paste info from wikipedia. I read the page you gave me, but it's confusing and I would like a far simpler explanation. Please reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The easiest thing to do is when you copy something from one article to another is to just put this in your edit summary:

copied content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution

Make sure you've actually linked the article in your edit summary. Example for Women in Italy:

copied content from Women in Ancient Rome; see that article's history for attribution

Or you can put this on the talk page of the article where you've added copied material, but it's more complicated:

{{Copied | from=[[article name]]|to=[[article name]]|diff=link to the edit where you added it}}

The diff link for Women in Italy would be http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Italy&oldid=337635477

Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuba Thanks

Dear Voceditenore, Thank you so much for your help on the List of tuba players. I see, as well, that Educational Assignments constitute a category, one whose page will assist my students and me going forward. I appreciate your having added the tag.Ijmusic (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Lechowski

An article Przemysław Lechowski is a faithful translation of the article from polish Wikipedia, which exists for one year. It is mainly based on biography placed at the official web page of the artist and there is artists’s permission at the polish Wikipedia given for using this text in polish, english and french. The other sources are two Who Is Who lexicons containing giographies of the artist. The author of that article in polish Wikipedia is Eukaliptus (an author of the articles about musicians - info at polish Wikipedia). I don’t see english translation of already existing article as uncorrection. However, english isn’t my native tongue – so if you have reservation regarding grammar or style, please make a correction of errors. According to your suggestions I have added references and sources, hope now there won’t be any reservations.

Franciszkalotta 12:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The references have really helped re the notability. I've put a copyedit notice on the article, and I'm pretty sure someone will be along soon to help. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir

Hallo Voceditenore, thank you for editing the stubs of some singing ladies that I created recently in a rush, to change some more soloists who recorded with the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir from red to blue before the ensemble will appear on DYK in a few hours with its sole voce di basso. Would you please check if the ensemble itself is still stub class? Musical greetings, alto, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Yes, I'd say it's still a stub. It's very short, and most of it still taken up with listing all performers and where the ensemble has performed. It also lacks references which are independent of the subject. The bach-cantatas site has taken their article from the official website of the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir, which they usually do. The bach-cantatas articles are OK for basic facts, but no article should be based solely them. Re the singer articles, they likewise are all based on bach-canatatas or official biographies and will need more independent sourcing eventually. But they're a good start. There's an alternative to red links in an article – you can always leave a name completely unlinked unless they are extremely prominent and have a lot of easily found independent coverage. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general. For the ensemble: I wonder if "early music" still applies, looking at Mozart, performed historically informed. For the soloists: I found these names linked in recording sections, and I had a discussion with a user who dislikes inter-wiki-links and encouraged stubs. For reasons of fairness I will treat the tenori the same way and hope that these articles will grow. Nice consequence already: a German wrote an article on de:Caroline Stam, better than the stub, smile. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'ange

Thanks for the corrections. For my next trick, I'll be writing about "Motzart". --Andy Walsh (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Hee. I noticed it because I often misspell Donizetti's name when I'm in a hurry. I left you a reply at the OP about the synopsis. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am flagging a bit. I've about exhausted all the resources I can find about this opera. I've hit the public library, JSTOR and a bunch of other databases, and my own books and CDs. I'm trying to get this comprehensive since there is almost no information out there about the opera other than what's in Ashbrook. Do you have any other ideas? I think this could be a short, but interesting FA at some point. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if someone's moved to Australia

When I looked at [4] and saw the mixture of voice types, opera singers and film, I had a sense of déjà vu. But there are no articles created and the address is in the wrong continent.

I've posted a greeting and have mentioned the need to reference evaluations.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess Geolocate was the first thing I checked when I first noticed the edits a while back.:-) But apart from a few instances of unreferenced evaluation, this editor has done wonders with the actual writing style, content, etc. of Bel canto. It's much improved in my view. Ditto the voice articles. I hope he/she has a bash at Verismo sometime. That really needs a going over. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singers to Opera

Thanks for your hint. Do you mean that even singers who never sing a line of opera or may even hate it get an opera banner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here - Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for 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 in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Voceditenore/Archive_9.