Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 27 July 2013

Opera B‑class

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

France B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Restoration of composer navbox

I propose that Template:Infobox opera be removed and replaced with Template:Verdi operas. Our traditional navbox is more useful and non-obtrusive, while this new Infobox opera is distracting and adds no information that is not already and better presented in the lead. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support restoration as a long-term contributor to this article dating back to 2005. Once again this infobox is problematic with regard to genre. Gerda Arendt should have proposed the infobox here first before taking any action, as she knows perfectly well the use of this particular box is controversial and prone to inaccuracy. --Kleinzach 02:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is a similar WP:POINT distraction at Rigoletto. --Kleinzach 02:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand that the composer navbox is redundant? There's a more complete navbox for the composer at the bottom of the opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I disagree that the top right composer navbox is redundant. It has long been supported by a strong consensus. --Kleinzach 01:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For the infobox: feel free to change it. If the genre is not correct, just drop it or change to Grand Opera. - No, I don't know "perfectly well" that "this particular box" is controversial, - it's an option of project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

An option of project opera? Whose option? Andy Mabbett's? Yours? --Kleinzach 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Update, quote: "Following discussions here last March ..., this is been under development at Template talk:Infobox opera. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation ... As this discussion has been open for over two weeks with some reservations but without any major objections to making this box available as an option for articles on individual operas, I've now gone ahead and added it to the list of templates on the main project page and to the Article Guide. Hopefully, this will not prove to be the end of civilization as we know it, although you never know ;). Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)." end of quote --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• My general thoughts on the Infobox (including that in my personal history I argued exactly as shown above) is found on Misplaced Pages:QAI/Infobox, short: the infobox is meant to repeat, in structured form, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not consistent with WP guidelines on infoboxes which stress that they are to summarise not repeat. --Kleinzach 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Without looking: How would you "summarize" a date of first performance, a subtitle, the name of a librettist, etc? If the guideline does not allow to repeat those key facts it needs to be changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Gerda, the box is supposed to summarise the article, i.e the article as a whole. Kleinzach 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your view. - I believe that an infobox supplying only a quick date and location of a topic is already helpful, everything else is optional. - "Genre": I changed the field to "Description" for now, awaiting further discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Description" is actually worse, IMO, because it's very vague: it could mean something similar to "genre", or it could be a plot description, or it could be....etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not meant to be permanent, but better be too general until consensus, suggestions welcome on the template talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX:When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose . . . . Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. In other words, long multi-field boxes are discouraged. Kleinzach 07:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

While the material you quote doesn't support your closing assertion (indeed, you appear to be scrabbling around for support for your position and finding nothing substantial), the inbox in question is not a "long multi-field box". Further, the quoted material does not support your earlier "summarise the article" assertion (emphasis in original) either, because it says (my emphasis) "summarize key facts in the article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's true that Andy Mabbett is an expert on MOS:INFOBOX. He rewrote a large chunk of it on 30 May . The words usually in the top right of an article were inserted in the first sentence. Kleinzach 21:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How dare I?!? Report me to WP:ANI for that, at once! (But first, please feel to address the point I made in my previous post in this section, refuting your false assertions). Intelligent readers will note that my what my uncontested edit actually did was to change the words "usually at the top" to "usually in the top right ...(in the desktop view)". Do feel free to point out infoboxes at the top left or top centre. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A navbox in the upper right does not good whatsoever. PumpkinSky talk 21:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahem

Pardon me for intruding and reverting to the orginal topic here. As at Rigoletto, I agree with Kleinzach and Robert.Allen that the old template should be retained, and I believe Robert.Allen has been correct in restoring it. Template:Infobox opera seems to me clunky. No clamour of complaint was ever present about the old template - if it ain't broken, why fix it? - --Smerus (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Different from Rigoletto, do you agree with me that all links in the sidebox would be repeated in the bottom navbox if that navbox (which should be present in every article that it links to) had not been removed. We are not talking about "fixing" but adding: a date in template form that appeared only in the infobox, a picture closer to the time that Verdi composed the work, and structured information useful for Wikidata. Site consistency - infobox on top, navbox on the bottom is normal - is another consideration. Did you read the related Signpost article? I am on Misplaced Pages to improve, not to retain something only because it is not "broken". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the infobox is intrusive and pointless; and I am not aware of any evidence base to indicate that it has any use or advantage over the template. --Smerus (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you haven't been paying attention. {{Infobox opera}} - like many of our infoboxes - emits metadata about the subject, making it machine-readable and available to services that reuse our data for a wide variety of purposes, as well as to browser tools operated by individual readers, all in furtherance of our mission to provide a world-wide, freely available educational resource. that;s in addition to providing a handy and convenient, easily accessible quick summary of key facts about the subject to our readers. None of that is true of the top-right navbox, which is redundant to the better-featured and more logically placed footer navbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I pay attention where content merits it, and not at the instruction of indiviudal editors. I'm not interested, and don't believe, in the messianic metadata arguments. This is all in effect WP:OR, and there is no evidence base to indicate that infoboxes, with or without metadata elements, improve WP either for the reader or for any WP 'mission'. Rather the contrary - inaccurate, or ineptly summarized or curtailed, information in infoboxes (and not only in musical topics of course) can in effect degrade the encyclopaedic authority of WP. We can certainly seek the best way of providing 'a world-wide, freely available educational resource' when that resource is in itself worth providing. At the moment article quality issues in Misplaced Pages, in musical topics and elsewhere, raise serious problems which better merit editor's application than potential techniques of marketing it. Let's get the product right first. -Smerus (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; given that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, why should we shove our information down Google's throat? Toccata quarta (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

'Like', as they say elsewhere.--Smerus (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

We make our information (machine-)readable to Google and others, because they want us to, because they do good and useful things with it, and because it serves our mission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You clearly haven't been paying attention in conversations in which you have otherwise participated; and to replies made to your comments or questions. You have been presented to the evidence of how infoboxes emit metadata; and its usefulness, That you choose to deny this, regardless of whether or not you approve of it being done, is rather silly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Development

Don Carlos
opera in 5 acts by Giuseppe Verdi
Giuseppe Verdi, composer of Don Carlos, 1876
Librettist	Joseph Méry Camille du Locle
Based on	Friedrich Schiller's play Don Carlos
Premiere	11 March 1867 (1867-03-11) Salle Le Peletier, Paris, by Théâtre Impérial de l’Opéra

According to one of the removals of this infobox, it's "still under development". Interesting, I thought that was true for every line on Misplaced Pages, and development normally happens in article space where more people can see it. But let's make an exception and develop right here, as an exercise. What do you think is missing or wrong? If it's on this opera, discuss here, if it's the template, on the template talk. Should we have for example a second infobox for its Italian version? (as we have two, for German and English publication, of works of Kafka) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I really like this one. PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted its removal as that reason was spurious. It was then removed as "there's no consensus for this change", which is also not a valid reason to revert (WP:DNRNC). I've now reverted its removal from this talk page; which was blatantly unacceptable, whatever the edit summary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Kleinzach removing the box from this talk)

like this (restored): This infobox shouldn't be placed here in talk space. Gerda Arendt previously agreed not to use this tactic following the controversy at Talk:Richard Wagner. If the box is going to be redeveloped, this is not the place. --Kleinzach 21:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kleinzach, you are right, it should not be placed here, it should be in the article and be developed there. - Following Wagner, I said I would not again place an infobox on a talk page when it's not wanted in an article, to remain on the talk page. - This is different, it is (or rather "was") on the talk page to be developed, to be taken back to the article. Also: this is an opera, not a composer, the infobox is not controversial, even if you think so. I take it to the project discussion now, I have my generous day and no interest in edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I added infomation about the Italian version there, ready to discuss development, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: It's not possible to have any kind of discussion here while my comments, to which you have responded, are being removed. . --Kleinzach 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I restored the "message" above, for the intelligent readers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

AS I noted below, what I actually did, as intelligent readers can see from the diff, was to revert you removing part of another editor's contribution, at the same time inviting you, in the edit summary, to restore your comment if you wished to. It's beyond time you stopped trying to censor others' contributions to talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

As so often, I find this draft infobox belies the often-heard claim that boxes offer a quick, easy-to-read overview of the central ideas of an article. Again, as so often, I find that simply reading the lead sentence in prose is far superior in giving me this overview. This article has a well-written lead, with virtually all the info of the box contained right in the first sentence (only the place and time of the premiere comes a bit later, at the end of the lead paragraph, where it is again quite easy to spot and efficiently placed.) In contrast, when I read the box for the first time just now, I found myself going vertically downwards, finding first "Don Carlos" (okay, obvious), then "by Giuseppe Verdi" (fine), then the pic, then the genre (fine, so far it's indeed easy to read). But then I stumbled. I first encountered two unfamiliar names ("Camille du Locle, Joseph Méry"). I found myself asking: who are they, what role did they play? Only then did I jerk my eyes leftwards, away from my natural (vertical) sequence of reading, in order to find the caption that goes with these names, finding "aha, those are the librettists". Why does the box force me into this unpredictable visual up-and-down, left-and-right? Because it's part of the tabular, caption-plus-content pattern of infoboxes. Who says that this tabular layout produces efficient reading? It just doesn't. For me, reading the lead sentence was a distinctly smoother, more efficient and more enjoyable experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Perhaps you may care to take a look at Rigoletto, where a similar situation has arisen, but where the original template has not yet been replaced. Your opinions may also be of interest there.--Smerus (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, saying that you read the lead sentence better. Nobody wants to replace that lead sentence. Someone looking just for a date information or the names of the librettists, will find it faster in the infobox. The present navbox only repeats information from the footer navbox that was removed (as it shows in Rigoletto), although it should appear in every article it navigates to. - Please note that the discussion is now at Misplaced Pages talk:QAI/Infobox#Don Carlos, with a second box added for the more frequently performed Italian version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it difficult to imagine how you could possibly think spreading this dispute to yet another place would be a good idea. As if the travelling circus hadn't had enough stops already. And as for splitting the box up into two, that is the most horrible idea possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The "yet another place" is a project's discussion of several infoboxes, which includes this one. (Did you read above "If the box is going to be redeveloped, this is not the place."?) - What would you do to do justice to the (more often performed) Italian version with a different name and premiere, not presented in the lead of the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of my message By Andy Mabbett

Andy Mabbett is now deleting what I write here . --Kleinzach 21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice try at a smear, again, but what I actually did, as intelligent readers can see from the diff, was to revert you removing part of another editor's contribution, at the same time inviting you, in the edit summary, to restore your comment if you wished to. It's beyond time you stopped trying to censor others' contributions to talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

He's got you on that one Kleinz. You really need to stop this sort of thing. Here's your removal. PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only am I deleted — but again this has been refactored. . --Kleinzach 22:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you don't deny removing someone else's comments. PumpkinSky talk 01:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The only "refactoring" was to make the heading level 3, so that it sits under the level 2 heading of the matter under discussion. No change was made to your comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class Opera articles
• WikiProject Opera articles
• B-Class France articles
• Low-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages