Portal talk:Opera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Update

From April ~ October 2008, I updated the portal every month. Beginning from November 2008, it will be updated at every 2 months - Jay (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an FP? I don't see a star in the corner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.229.175.154 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not, see WP:FPORT for a list. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Portal:Opera - Discussion needed

(Copied from the Opera Project Talk Page so the discussion can continue here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Following this brief disussion,[1] some rather radical changes have been made to the Opera Portal by User:Cirt. In my view, they not necessarily welcome ones and quite contrary to what we had envisaged for the portal in our previous discussions here. The portal now has old articles and seemingly restricted only to ones with officially "good article" or "featured article" status. There are only 3 in rotation and one of them, Erik Chisholm is only tangentially related to opera. Not one of his operas even has an article. Likewise the images used are mostly dreary and small. If this is the price of going for "featured portal status", well, I'm not sure I'm in favour of it all, frankly. Cirt, has said he'll come here to discuss how the "randomization" process works. I suggest members have a look at the new format of the Portal and bring their questions/comments here, Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give me a bit more time - still in the process of reformatting it. This was after this comment by Whjayg (talk · contribs). Also, please continue discussion about the portal at the portal's main talk page, which is Portal talk:Opera. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait for the formatting to finish, but my impression from the discussion was that only a "randomization"/formatting process would be added. Not a complete change (and in some cases deletion) of the portal's content. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, when the process is completed, there will be more content, not less. Please, give me a chance to improve this portal so that it can be ready to be considered for Featured portal quality status. I have had some success with work on other portals in the past. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does this development of a new format have to take place on the actual live page? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Development of a new format is frequently done on a live page. It would be more difficult to do the work for all of the various subpages on sandbox pages, and then afterwards move them to the "live" pages. It is a wiki, after all. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How does the randomization of articles work? Do we get to select certain articles which will rotate or does the system select the articles? From past discussions, we liked to select recently improved articles to feature at the Portal, even if they had not been vetted through the GA and FA process (they would however be of high quality (at least B class) through the project's own evaluative standards).Nrswanson (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus, we could certainly consider lowering the standards of the portal to allow adding entries of articles lower than WP:GA or WP:FA - but yeah, I would not go any lower than B-class for that - because we shouldn't be adding stuff from unreferenced articles or articles with wholly unsourced portions. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that the rigours of the GA and FA processes have been quite offputting to a number of members of the Opera Project, who are all dedicated to creating new articles and improving existing ones, which is why we have so few articles in those categories. Most of the content of articles on operas and opera composers is pretty uncontentious, so I would definitely join Nrswanson (talk) in voting for including B-class articles. --GuillaumeTell 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Though I would of course urge members of the project to have some collaboration drives to at the very least get some more stuff to WP:GA class. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My concerns were similar to those of Guillaume Tell - especially the disappearance of both Arthur Sullivan and Pelléas et Mélisande. I am very happy to use B class articles. Note also that we don't double-banner with our daughter projects, but articles relating to Gilbert & Sullivan are also suitable for occasional use on the opera portal, and definitely those in the Wagner Project. Again, we tend not to double banner with the Composers Project unless it's someone with a large body of opera compositions, but many of the composer articles are suitable too. The featured articles from daughter or sister projects can also go under the "Featured content" section in my view, e.g. Rhinemaidens and Mozart in Italy I do have one other quibble. The section titled "Main Topics" gives an odd impression of which articles are on important or key topics in opera. Many of them are not, especially amongst the terminology articles e.g. Convenienze. Is it possible to call that section something else, perhaps simply "Opera topics"? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now, I know we have quite a lot of opera featured pictures - I've found and/or restored quite a number of them myself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my.. when I said "you may", I was referring to the "auto-randomize articles", not the layout! I would say that the old layout is much much better than this. Cirt, are you saying that the old format doesnt qualiy the portal to become featured portal? I personally dont like the new layout at all. I asked your help to do the auto-changing for the article just like Portal:Spain. You can give your opinion about the layout or contents but not changing it like what it is now. I seldom logon lately because for some reason Wiki is a bit lagging, that is why I said, give me some time (to study the coding). I am sorry with my comment but I am not happy with the current format, not to mentioned you changed it without discussing - Jay (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok Cirt, if you dont mind, please stop doing what you are doing. You have totally changed the whole thing. As I said in Featured Portal page, all the articles are based on discussion. You did not discuss at all. I volunteer to take care of the portal because I am familiar with the format. You removed our navigation templates, you changed the articles and whole formats to this? To be frank, this format is so much ugly (sorry to say) compared to the old one! Gosh! I am sorry but I am very upset! Wiki is lagging bad on my side, and to undo back the whole thing is a MAJOR waste of time to me! Actually I dont know what else to say. Give me time to think because it is hard for me to think when I mad. To be frank, I regret nominating the Portal to become "Featured Portal" if I know this is the ending of it! - Jay (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(After listening to Domingo.. and drink a glass of water) I have been thinking to revert the whole formats /articles to the old one - then only we will do the randomize articles without changing the main format. The randomized article means, it will display all archived articles including the new one automatically without having people to hit the "archived link" (readers will still have the option). As for articles, it will be done through monthly discussion as usual. Before I revert back to the old format, I like to know whether you guys agree to revert or not. If majority wants to keep current format, I will leave it as it is. - Jay (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally liked the layout of the old portal better. I also prefered the selection of content over the randomization of content; it allowed us to feature recent content additions and gave a level of creative freedom which to my mind makes the portal more interesting to read. I would support us moving back to the old system even if it means forgeting about becoming a featured portal.Nrswanson (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

.Nrswanson, randomized display is not neccessary if you read the criteria to become featured portal, unless if I read it wrong - Jay (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• That may be true by the letter of the guidelines, but it may not be true in actual practice. You'll just have to wait and see what response you will get.Nrswanson (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, I have a great deal of sympathy for you after all the work you've put in on our behalf. Let's see what Cirt (talk) has to say. --GuillaumeTell 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria

Addition: Randomized feature is an added value but it is not a main criteria for "Featured Portal", for that I do not see any rush for it at all. The criteria to fulfill to become Featured Portal as listed in Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria are:-

1. Useful. It covers a topic that is broad and interesting.
2. Attractive. It displays Wikipedia's content in an aesthetically pleasing way. The colours are coherent and complementary, and do not detract from the content. Featured portals have no formatting issues.
3. Ergonomic. It is coherently constructed to display Wikipedia's content logically and effectively in ways that enhance usefulness and attractiveness.
4. Well-maintained. It is updated regularly to display different aspects of Wikipedia's content in an area.

Based on criteria listed above, I believe our selection of articles and old format are acceptable. In the last discussion, we have decided to publish article that we worked on the previous month, while as for others (picture, audio etc) are based on majority’s choice. Whether it is will be displayed randomize or not, is not an issue because the articles that we have selected are the articles we like to feature as "Featured Article". Yes it is good to have randomized article feature but is that a criteria that determine whether the Portal is useful, attractive, ergonomic and well-maintained as per required in Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria? - Jay (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put a lot of work into this

I have put a lot of work into this portal, after being asked to help with the automation by Whjayg (talk · contribs). I do not normally toot my own horn, but I have a little bit of experience with portals, having previously worked on portals and successfully getting 14 portals up to featured quality status. Needless to say, it quite disappointing not only to not have anyone recognize the amount of work I have done on this portal, which is still not done by the way, but moreso have all these complaints about actually making the portal better. It is not easy. I know it must have been nice to have a WikiProject manually update the portal once a month, but this format will be much easier to maintain in the future. It only has a few selections rotating at the moment simply because I haven't had a chance to add more in yet - when it is ready to be submitted for featured portal consideration - there will be over 20 selections rotating per subsection. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I appreciate your effort but the problem with it is, it is not what we want you to do in the first place, I was shocked when I looked at it yesterday. I nominated the old portal to become "Featured Portal" (because in my opinion, the old portal fits the requirements) and agree you to help doing the randomization. But changing our layout and articles are not part of our deal at all - that is the part that makes your work unappreciated, not your effort. What makes me wonder is, what is "Featured portal" in your opinion? Not too long ago, Featured Portals are group of portals that are rich with creativity where you can see uniqueness in each of them. I just noticed that all the "featured portal" today look identical (except for colors) and I am wondering what happened to the uniqueness, freedom of design and creative ideas when all “formerly beautiful portals” have been changed to standard format with drag category list, etc? I don’t want to compare with others as I don’t speak for other portal but as I mentioned to you before, this portal is a collaboration within members of this project and in here we discussed before making changes. I nominated the portal because I can see that our portal fits to become “Featured Portal” because it is useful, attractive (unique from the rest), ergonomic and well-maintained. I do not expect you to change all that. I already told you to stop making changes it but you continue doing so. To me, if the price of becoming “Featured Portal” means to ignore what we have worked on all these while, then I have to agree with the rest that I do not wish this portal to become “Feature Portal”. I will undo all the changes later (after work), I am at work now. Please stop making changes, thanks. - Jay (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, you make a lot of points here, but essentially my point is this: It does not make sense to have a portal being maintained manually by a WikiProject or by a few editors. I have witnessed this happen multiple times in the past - the WikiProject dies or becomes inactive - or even simply the few members of the WikiProject that had previously updated the portal become inactive - and then the portal suffers due to this inactivity and becomes stagnant - sometimes for years. That is why helping to automate some of the processes when the page is purged is a good thing, and why having every single subsection of the portal depend on manual work is a bad thing. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I didnt say I disagree with the randomization, yes I am still on to it. But I will personally doing it after I restored back our portal to its original state (layout, formats, articles, categories template, audio etc). - Jay (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's calm down a bit here. Cirt is still working, and if you dislike the layout, it's still going to be easier to move things around once his groundwork is done. Let him finish the first-draft working randomised portal, then we can discuss things that should be moved, changed, or re-added. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is easier to do it from beginning than modifying changes done by others. I just hope Cirt to stop making further changes because my randomization formats (the coding structure) may be different. I will do it later tonight (it is morning here) - Jay (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, I believe Cirt has worked on cleaning up and finishing the portals for about 90% of Featured Portals in existence, so I wouldn't blow him off too quickly. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I acknowledge the obvious effort on the part of Cirt, I think his contributions are at cross purposes with those of the opera project. First of all, I don't agree that this project is in any danger of piddling out. We have been consistantly active since 2005 and I don't see that changing. Second, the automated format is not really ideal for this project. We rarely submit articles for GA/FA review so the articles featured in the automated system are not likely to change. Basically it would be the same things repeating over and over. Of course we could add B class articles but I notice that Cirt has started to demote a number of our B class articles... Regardless, I think our project enjoyed selecting articles to feature at the Portal together. Under an automated system I don't see that happening and I can pretty much garauntee that the project will completely lose interest in the Portal if it is automated. To me a manually updated portal has so many interesting possibilities and it gives us motivation to work on content that could be featured. A randomized automated portal requires no effort and is frankly of little value or interest to me as an editor. Nrswanson (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, why not use a mixture of randomised and selected content? Then we can show off recent collaborations and celebrate major anniversaries, but we also don't lose touch with past work by putting it into a permanent archive? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not really my vision for the Portal. Opera is such a big subject that we really shouldn't need to repeat content at the Portal. Past articles are not forgotten because they are still part of the encyclopedia. I personally think of the portal as being like a magazine, you don't repeat articles from issue to issue.Nrswanson (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson - I stated above that it's fine to lower the standards of the Portal to include B-class content - see Diff. As to your point about demoting articles, if you have a concern please feel free to raise it with me - but I think I only adjusted the class ratings on perhaps one or two articles that obviously failed the B-class criterion. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It's a bit hard to know where put some responses, so I'll just note here that I've added a response to the Collaboration section below to the effect that I feel we should wait until Cirt has finished the changes he envisaged and then talk about the way forward instead of precipitously reverting all his work. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC) PS. And from of his above comments, Shoemaker's Holiday also shares my view. Best, Voceditenore (talk)

I have been thinking to keep some of his work for eg. the randomization while in the same time restoring the articles and rearranged some of the format including putting back out category templates. Reverting all back is not an easy task and I dont intent to do to the max. Some of his additions are good. Let move around here and there a bit and let see from here. - Jay (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am currently moving around the boxes and change here and there a bit (look at the history, i put remarks on the changes I made), please let me know what else you want to add. To Cirt, I appreciate your work and I believe we can continue working together - Jay (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jay, at this point, perhaps it would be more helpful if you waited for further discussion here before making any more reversions/changes. There's no rush, and some of these really ought to be talked about first. If nothing else to avoid duplicating work, and constantly having to monkey with the layout. See the various sections below on the individual issues, including "New content" section?. On a more general note, I agree with Cirt about the need for randomization of a lot of the content. We are a vigourous but small project. At most only 6 of us regularly participate on the talk page. It's too small for manual upkeep to be entirely reliable. Nor am I sure it's desirable. I also agree with Cirt re insuring that the biographies and articles abelled as "featured" or even "selected" are up to a high standard. His assessment of La boheme was correct in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The randomization stays. It goes the same with pictures, articles, DYK, quote etc. All these can be further discussed. I just tweak around some of the formats and put back what have gone missing. Refer history for the changes I made - Jay (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

À propos La bohème: me thinks slapping 9 {{fact}} tags in 3 paragraphs is a bit pointy, though. E.g.: "Although Puccini's opera is in Italian, it was given a French title, shortening Murger's title to simply La bohème.{{fact}}" — pleeze! Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Spamming citation tags is rarely helpful. This is a handy guide on when to provide references.--Folantin (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed the multiple {{fact}} tags now. Some of them quite excessive. Nevertheless I personally think that whole section is goofy and unnecessarily detailed. The whole thing could (and probably should) be replaced by appropriately an placed link to Bohemianism somewhere in the lead. But that's a discussion for the article's talk page, not here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the multiple fact tags, but the fact is the article simply is not up to B-class standards. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Icon placement in See also section of articles

Note

This portal navigation can be placed on articles, and is commonly placed in the See also section of an article on Wikipedia, using the following code:

{{Portal|Opera}}

This displays as:

Cirt (talk)

Featured pictures ?

If there are 10 or more Featured Pictures that related to Opera, we could relegate the Selected picture section to only WP:FP-quality pictures, and call it Featured picture, instead of Selected picture. If related WP:FPs could be listed below, that would be helpful. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

La Scala opera house at night

I've added a current FP below. But, I would prefer to keep this section as Selected picture. It's too constricting to keep to FPs only, even if there were 10 of them. A lot of them are visually similar 19th century black and white illustrations and frankly, a little of that goes a long way. There are also many really striking images which haven't gone through the FP process but would look much better on the portal and fankly make the subject look more attractive e.g. the one had selected for February: File:Venedig Theater La Fenice.jpg, as well as well some of our past selected images, e.g. File:Royal Opera House and ballerina.jpg. Also, I'm not terribly happy with the rotating photos on the main opera article at the top. (1) They're too small for any impact (2) they don't have a proper caption just a link above them (doesn't look nice) and (3) Many of them are boring. The Opera article is the lead into the portal. It should have a fixed image (which can be manually changed every once in a while per consensus). I'd like to see a larger image, that's more attractive, more iconic, and properly captioned, like the one on the right. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Opera-related FPs

• Here's one File:Le grand foyer-2.jpg. It's the foyer of the Palais Garnier opera house. Voceditenore (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of the images we'd want that wouldn't pass FP would certainly pass at valued pictures, and if it's neither valuable nor very good, we probably shouldn't include it anyway. So, why don't we nominate some for VP or FP? If there's a few images we want to put in anyway, we can do that, but there's no need to sell ourselves short. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just saying, if you have ten or more featured pictures relating to Opera, you could relegate that section to only featured pictures, and call it Featured picture, as opposed to Selected picture. If not, not. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Response to User:Voceditenore

In response to User:Voceditenore's comment, above, I have changed Main topics in the portal to Opera topics. Please note that the entries for this subsection were initially drawn from the following templates: {{Opera genres}}, {{Opera terms}} and {{Opera lists}}. Also in response to User:Voceditenore's comment, above - I have added entries including Arthur Sullivan, Rhinemaidens and Mozart in Italy into rotation in the Selected articles section. Unfortunately, the article Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) is currently rated Start-class and not of good enough quality to go in the portal yet. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware that you got the topics from the templates, but those are navigation templates placed in all similar articles, and not meant to imply that the articles themselves are key opera topics. Another suggestion for a opera related FA is Thespis (opera). Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it appears that Jay simply reverted and added those navigation templates right back onto the Portal's main page - so essentially, they were there before, he added them back again, but with poor formatting, as opposed to that new subsection I had created. :( Cirt (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, what are u talking about? I didnt revert u, but you did it first. With poor formatting? Excuse me! - Jay (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you did revert me. You added back the navboxes, and removed the category section I had created... Cirt (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did by putting back those infoboxes. I revert that part and few others after you "revamped" the whole portal without discussing with us. Technically, I did not revert you but restoring - Jay (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"New content" section?

We could have a New content section for new and emerging articles relating to Opera that we wish to highlight - we'd just have to make sure that these particular articles are well-sourced, prior to being highlighted in the portal's main page. In this manner, we could leave this particular subsection to be updated manually, instead of randomized. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea which could give us the best of the worlds. I hope other OP members will consider this. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This one can easily be added - Jay (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav boxes (genre, terminology and Categories

Jay has already changed these back to the old collapsible versions and frankly I prefer that. The others were too wordy. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nav boxes are not appropriate in portal space in this fashion. Cirt (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, Im lazy talking any longer. You want edit warring? You got it. You seems to undo my changes, and yet you were whining about people dont appreciate you. Yes, keep doing what you do! I will undo what you do. You cant decide what and how people are running the portal. I was about to be "nice" to you but U changed back all what I did yesterday and putting all those that you do. I was trying to be fair by NOT deleting all what you do but keep most of your work. But if it is not enough for you, I am afraid I cant work together with you. I am sure your work here is done. - Jay (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't edit war. If consensus is to use these navboxes, then fine. But I reiterate that they are inappropriate on the main page of a portal - navboxes are intended for article space... Cirt (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hate edit warring too. I put them back because they were there before, plus, in my opinion (and few members), they are more appealing than the bulky section that you made. However, I am open for changes. If members want different interface or layout, it is fine with me too. So, please just leave it be. - Jay (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Related Projects and Portals

I prefer the icons to the words. But the sections for Projects and Portals should be kept separate not all mixed in one box. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will create a saperate box for it - Jay (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Purge the page if you cant see the new changes - Jay (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Back-to-back sections these two looked like they duplicated each other, and in the prior version Projects and Portals were mashed together. Also, the version with the icons neglected to mention Parent projects, Descendant projects, Similar projects, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is our preferences and they obviously NOT duplicated. One is Portal, the other one is Project - Jay (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The design/formatting of the two, one right above the other, looks silly. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is silly to you, why not give your suggestion down here, and lets work together. Dont simply remove and replaced with your version in the live page. Some people may not like that kind of "method", I dont! Lets talk here, draw out your sketch (down here), and if it is really good and we love it, then, by all mean, put it back there. I will personally post it there for you if your idea is good + members agree with it - Jay (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Opera Project section

What happened to it? Also, what happened to the Things you can do section. I think that was useful, but needed serious editing, especially re the requested articles. Perhaps under an Opera Project section some of the old text can be incorporated from Portal:Opera/Things you can do? Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that part is useful but if you could give me the contents that we want to placed into the box. When Cirt added that part, he actually removed "Members intro" page. I will add "things to do" again but feel free to "beutify it". Gimme a sec - Jay (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, I have created a new box for project intro. However, the "Things to do" contents are a bit.. I dont know, perhaps someone care to make it look more appealing? - Jay (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is self-referential and inappropriate for portal-space. It could however go on the main page of the wikiproject WP:OPERA itself. Also, it is repetitive to the section about the WikiProjects, which contains a link to WikiProject Opera as well. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesnt give u any right to remove it. I have put it back - Jay (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for the main page of a portal, and is more appropriate for the main page of a WikiProject. It should be removed. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

It is wonderful that WikiProject Opera has collaborated in many ways in the past, and I am excited by the degree of activity in the WikiProject where there is vigorous debate. We can work together to mold the portal into what Project members want it to be. I understand early drafts of the Portal may not be quite what you wanted, but give me a little time to get the basics prepared, and then we can tweak the portal as needed. More articles, pictures, etc, can of course be added, but I needed to select a few to start off, and the FAs and GAs already tagged with {{WikiProject Opera}} were an obvious choice. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no one can fault OP members on "vigorous debate".;-) Seriously though, I was initially taken aback by the radical changes you made without any further discussion or consensus. It seemed that there was a misunderstanding on both sides as to what you were intending/being asked to do. However, while I have some issues with the current way the portal is laid out and some of its contents, some of the changes are actual improvements. I would suggest to Opera Project members that we let Cirt finish what he started and then discuss it calmly and objectively. It won't make any difference in terms of the work required to restore the portal to its old state, should the consensus go that way. But I caution everyone not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And Cirt, it would help if you can finish it as soon as possible so we can discuss a finished product, tweaks etc. Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked around the format, adding new boxes and adding back some missing info, logo and templates. The randomization remains and works well after the changes I made. As for the articles, they stay as they are, we can discuss about this later on. I still think the articles should be based on our monthly discussion, preferably articles that we work-on the previous month. As for "Selected Biography", I prefer it to be split like before (Composer and Singer) - Jay (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said below, unfortunately it appears the Opera project does not (yet) have enough quality content for two separate sections devoted to biographies. Let's stick to the one, Selected biography, and try to find the highest-quality, (read sourced) articles, to include. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I am not asking you. As I told you, in here, we work as a team. If the members like it that way, thats the way I do. Besides, I dont care for the "Featured Portal", anyway! - Jay (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are not enough quality-biographies to do this. If there were, I would gladly help to organize separate subsections. But we should strive not to highlight poorly sourced, or worse yet, wholly unsourced, articles, on the main page of a portal. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I know we do not have enough quality bio, but is it "compulsory" to put up A class articles? About your offer to organize saperate section, this time I may have to say "No" because I will do it myself. I will do it if members want a split section like before (by restoring all our Portal archived articles. Those articles were selected by members though discussion) - Jay (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Selected Biography

Do you want to seperate "Selected Biography" like before? We used to have "Selected Composer" and "Selected Singer", let me know what you think - Jay (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is not really enough quality-content to enable this. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I am not asking you. As I told you, in here, we work as a team. If the members like it that way, thats the way I do. Besides, I dont care for the "Featured Portal", anyway! - Jay (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to include poorly sourced material on the main page of a portal. Thus, there is not enough quality content to have these two sections be separate. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

True, it is not appropriate but our former selected articles, featured composer and selected singer arent too bad to be published in the portal; and as a matter of fact, we are still improving them. In my opinion, the most important is, those articles were chosen among all lots by members - Jay (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GimmeBot

GimmeBot (talk · contribs) will come and update the closed portal peer review and featured portal candidacy discussions. Please do not remove those tags from the top of this page. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Things you can do

I think this should go, at least in its current form. However, what I think we SHOULD have is the Composer of the month and Opera of the month collaborations. The code we have for them even has the advantage of making that easy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This should stay, it is a common feature in many featured portals - but it needs to be in the bottom section at 100% width, or else it looks squished. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Composer of the month and Opera of the month collaborations..." these sound more like things that should be featured on the main page of a WikiProject, not the main page of a portal. Portals are generally not meant to feature Works-in-progress in this fashion. However, WikiProjects are designed to foster Collaborations of the month and Collaborations of the week - those are precisely the sort of thing meant for WikiProject-space. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The design looks too bulky and not so nice. I may change the design someday while keep the contents. I disagree with your idea of "common feature in many featured portals". I dont think we should limit our creativity because it is a common idea or use. - Jay (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Opera topics

Why was this removed? It does not make sense to use templates that are meant for article mainspace, in a portal. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Compare. The assortment of multicolored navboxes looks quite silly, and the standard for other featured portals is a subsection devoted to Topics. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you removed our template without asking. Besides our templates look better, maybe not to your eyes - Jay (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These navbox templates are inappropriate on main Portal space, they are intended for Wikipedia main article space. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think it inappropriate if the template makes the portal look great, unique and save lot of space? - Jay (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Project introduction"

This should be removed. It violates the idea of portals which is not to be self-referential. It is a nice idea, however, for the main page of the WikiProject page, and it could go on WP:OPERA's main page. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed as inappropriate for Portal-space. Would be a great idea to have on the main page of WP:OPERA, which itself could use some restructuring (sometimes if you make the main page of a WikiProject looks more like a portal, it is easier to navigate). Cirt (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, are you dictating us? When you said, "This should be removed", you REMOVED it right away. Hey man, I dont appreciate the way you do your work. The "Project intro" stays - I have put it back - Jay (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use CAPS like this. It is rude. Of course we can discuss, but as I said, it is self referential, and something that is appropriate for WikiProject-space, but not for Portal-space. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you said it (the rude thingy) because if you dont know - revamping others work without discussion is trillion time rude'r. Dont you think? - Jay (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Selected quote

I see that more Selected quotes were added. That's great, but none of them are sourced. (See that the first entries I had added were sourced.) I will step down the rotation until the new ones are appropriately sourced, so that the portal is not featured unsourced information on the main page. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The following quotes are unsourced and need sourcing before they can appear on the main page of the portal:

• Portal:Opera/Selected quote/4
• Portal:Opera/Selected quote/5
• Portal:Opera/Selected quote/6
• Portal:Opera/Selected quote/7

See for example Portal:Opera/Selected quote/3. Please take care to make sure that further additions to this section are sourced in the same manner. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You added a link to WikiQuote and do u noticed that even in WikiQuote, they have the unsourced part? I have put it back - 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is inappropriate for WikiQuote as well. It is inappropriate to have unsourced material on the main page of the portal. Please remove this. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me work on the sources and will remove them if I cant find any. In a meantime, leave it be - Jay (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Why was the Categories subsection removed? I see it now exists with the template {{Opera categories}}, but those navbox templates are meant for Wikipedia article mainspace, not for portal space. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Added back the categories section. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I will undo this again! wHY MUST U DICTATE WHAT WE CAN AND WHAT WE cant? As I said, I am not interested with the "Featured Portal" anymore. - Jay (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whjayg (talk · contribs) - Please do not use CAPS in this manner. It appears that you are shouting, and it is rude. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you said it (the rude thingy) because if you dont know - revamping others work without discussion is trillion time rude'r. Dont you think? - Jay (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects box

Compare. This modified WikiProject box is more extensive, covering Parent projects, Main project, Descendant projects, as well as Similar projects. The old version duplicated the exact same design as the Related portals section - and also in its initial state combined both Related projects and lated portals. This version is much better. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Operalogo.svg

This image icon is being used too much in the portal, making the portal feel a bit too self-referential. As you can see, I used it in the section Opera topics, in a larger version. It should be removed from the top of the portal and from the subsection Related portals, as it looks a bit too tacky in those places and self-referential, but is appropriate (once) in the Opera topics section. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: Removed those extra two, kept the one in the Opera topics section (that section should not have been removed from the portal in the first place). Cirt (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have put back the logo, dont remove it! - Jay (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks tacky and self-referential to use it over and over and over again. Please remove it. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the main header? No, it looks nice with it. FYI, I am kind of person who are open for discussion. And when I said discussion, I am talking about at least 4 people agreement. The logo has been there from the day 1 this portal was created. However if members think it doesnt look nice, I will remove it willingly. But I will not remove it just because you want me to. Please understand Cirt, I like team-work, I dont dictate and I do simply do as I wish. I expect the same from others too. - Jay (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut in the Intro

The shortcut in the Intro section breaks up the text, there really isn't a need for it, it should be removed. It is more of a Wikipedia-space function than a portal space function. Also, I see the text of the Intro was cut down, this should be restored as I had taken it from the lede of the article Opera, that way the continuity of sourcing is maintained. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, it appears all that was cut was the third paragraph from Opera, so not such a big deal. I still think the shortcut is a bit self-referential and should be removed. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to remove short-cut, why not you suggest to WIKI to remove "short-cut template" and delete it from all articles/portals once and for all? I do not see any harm for it to be there. It stays - Jay (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Main page of a WikiProject? Or Portal about the topic "Opera" ?

I think this distinction needs to be made. The main page of a portal is not intended to replicate the main page of the WikiProject about a topic, but rather to assemble the best quality content for the reader/visitor about the topic. Yes, there could be one or two WikiProject-related links in the subsection about Related WikiProjects, and the subsection Things you can do, but for the most part this is a portal about a topic, not big invitation to join a WikiProject. That should be what the main page of the WikiProject is for, as well as the WikiProject talk page header tags. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to make changes to the changes I made if there is consensus for it (though I'd rather that portal space not be used to make the main page of a Portal look like the main page of a WikiProject) - I will be out for a bit. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

YOU said "Feel free to make changes" but you revert back all the changes I made last night. In your comment above, you simply say "should be removed" because you felt that they are "not appropriate", etc and you removed them all. FYI, I have put back all the changes I made last night - Jay (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whjayg (talk · contribs) - [2] - Please undo this. Instead of reverting all my changes (some of which including increasing the max on some selections) - could we please discuss the things you'd like to change? Cirt (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to back away from this portal as it is clear, unfortunately, that the intention here is to turn it into the main page of a WikiProject, as opposed to the main page of a portal about Opera. If others wish for my help with the portal in the future, feel free to drop a note at my talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, see who is talking (You said, instead of reverting, why not we discuss things you like to change) . You said "things I like to change". No Cirt, those are not "things I like to change". Those were there before YOU CHANGED. As I said, you have done doing your part, and I thank you for that. And now is the time for us to tweak around, while in a same time maintaining your format. Am I not being fair enough to you? If the members want to change here and there or add more things, let it be. And please dont tell me to revert it. I want to make the portal to be beautiful, unique and creative. I also do not wish to make it "identical" with other portals. As long as I dont violate any rules, so be it. As usual, if members think they want to add/remove here and there, I will of course listen to majority - Jay (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Really, it is very unfortunate that this has become so personalized. I particularly deplore the use of CAPITAL letters (i.e. shouting). And I really wish OP members would listen to and reflect on what Cirt has said. After reading all this, my view is that Opera Project members (myself included) have long had a basic misunderstanding of what a Wikipedia Portal is for and what it should be like. Now that I understand it, I agree with Cirt that at the moment it looks like (and we have been editing like) it is the Opera Project's main page or an introduction to the Project rather than to the Topic. It is way too self-referential and all those extra OP icons all over it should go. Likewise, I now feel that the Introduction to the Project as it stands isn't appropriate for a portal. I would strongly suggest reverting that section to Portal:Opera/WikiProjects. Perhaps a small OP icon could be added next to its name instead of Image:Community.png. But that should be the limit of its use. I also agree with Cirt that only really good quality stuff should go into the portal, including anything we put into a New Content section. But frankly, I'm inclined to walk away from this discussion too, unless other OP members are willing to reflect on this and perhaps even admit {{{SHOCK! HORROR! LAMENTATIONS!}}} that we probably got the wrong end of the stick this time. It does happen, you know.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am doing various other things at present and haven't really had much time to consider the ins and outs of what has been going on here. In fact, I am totally confused, and every time I return I am even more confused. What I would like to see, preferably all in one place rather than in lots of different sections, is

• an explanation by Cirt (talk) of the principles on which s(he) has been basing the changes (feel free to paste together bits from above if appropriate)
• A complete portal redesigned by Cirt without any interference from anyone else so that we can actually see what it looks like and how it works and then discuss it

and what I would not like to see is continual reversions of individual bits until after the discussion has taken place.

--GuillaumeTell 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a view of the complete portal as designed by Cirt:[3]. More or less. The ugly short cut box in the main opera article wasn't there. That's a result of one of Jay's later reversions.

Jay has now reverted the Portal to show the final version by Cirt before all the reverts, edits, counter-edits etc. began. Apart from randomization, Cirt added some new content, e.g. In this month and What you can do. He also suggested (but never got a chance to implement) a further section, New content, to showcase new or significantly enlarged content, emerging from our monthly collaborations. Here's a basic summary of his rationale for his changes and additions, as I have understood it. He may return here to elaborate, but after the above... er... "discussions", he may not. His proposals and criteria are those congruent with the Wikipedia guidelines on portals, and with the criteria for featured portals. Anyhow these were his main points:

1. Wikipedia Portals should be about an introduction to a topic not to a project. Excessive self-reference, especially to a particular project should be avoided.

2. Only articles that are unambiguously B class (minimum) should be in the portal rotation, apart from those in a New content section, but those should, at the bare minimum, be adequately referenced.

3. No unsourced quotes or unreferenced DYKs should appear in the portal.

Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Updated 13 February, Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, let’s have it your way. I just hope this portal would not end up like some portals that have been abandoned after massive changes just like this. Usually after heating arguments, those who care to maintain would just walk away to avoid more arguments. And after the “frenzy makeover party” has over, the certain someone who just came in to stir things up will move on to other, and the portal just been left unmaintained and slowly died. You guys can revert whatever I do because it is just so ugly, SHOCKINGLY HORROR, no quality, hideous and useless. If you want to see the end-product of “Cirt’s work”, you don’t have to wait till it is over, he is basically “duplicating” other featured portals – in his term as “standardization”. I, on the other hand prefer creativity and unique. Well, enough said and please revert all my ugly works - Jay (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Jay, this isn't a question of who "gets their way". No one knows what the OP consensus or "way" is. We haven't even had a chance to form one. Because of the constant reversions, piecemeal editing every time a suggestion is made, and outright edit-warring, we have had no chance to discuss it calmly and rationally with a stable revised version to refer to. I'm sorry if you feel that asking for that was unreasonable. I'm also sorry that you view any willingness to discuss the validity of some of Cirt's proposed changes as judging your work to be "no quality, hideous and useless". Nothing could be further from the truth. Voceditenore (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

As it stands, we have the worst of all possible worlds: A half-finished conversion that got mangled by the subsequent "improvements", including that hideous and over-dominating "Things you can do" section, a broken "click to update" button overlapping text, and Cirt's been attacked badly enough for trying to help that I wouldn't blame him if he never came back to finish anything, like the proposed ´"new content" or "Last month's selected collaboration" or whatever we'd have called the section. We've also enerally made our entire project look bad and extremely unappreciative of any help being offered, which probably just killed any chances of recruiting anyone else to help us on very much of anything. I don't really see how this outcome can be considered satisfactory to anyone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have revert back to 100% Cirt's work, and I'm out of here - Jay (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The current state

The portal is now in the revised version set up by Cirt, and can be considered on its own merits. It's also self-maintaining, with new pages easily added to the rotating sections. The Things you can do section is (in my and Shoemaker's view) too big (and a bit ugly too), but it can be easily pared down and edited to something more suitable without causing disruption to the overall design, if members are in agreement.

I still think Cirt's suggested New content section (either manually changed or automatically rotating) to showcase quality work from the OP monthly collaborations would be an excellent idea. If other members are in agreement to add this, I'm hoping I can persuade him to set it up for us. But before we ask this, we need to have the views of other members and iron out any other changes that we want to make before they are made.

The previous piecemeal editing and reverts made any rational discussion impossible. So please leave this stable version until other OP members have had a chance to evaluate and discuss it. In the meantime, I'm going to source more of the quotes so they can be added to the Selected quote rotation. Voceditenore (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been nosing around here and will get some thoughts together soon. Meanwhile, I see that one can rotate articles oneself, but how often is automatic rotation employed? And how can B-class articles be incorporated, preferably sooner rather than later? As things stand, the display is very heavily G&S-oriented, which, given that this is the live portal rather than a test version, will perhaps be a bit offputting to mainstream opera aficionados and rather confusing to those wanting to learn more about opera. --GuillaumeTell 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame the G&S project for actually having featured articles, good articles, and featured pictures: It's not like anyone's stopping the rest of opera from same, and I actually have part of an Aïda restoration done. But it's a bit annoying, because I'm getting a very strong impression that I'm the only member of the Opera project with any significant amount of featured credits, and that most of the project isn't even interested in improving work past a certain point. It's one of the reasons I've kind of gone off the Wikiproject, to be honest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm not blaming the the G&S project, but the world of opera is a very big one (just count the operas in the opera corpus), and the world of G&S, full of dedicated people as it is, is a small one. --GuillaumeTell 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GuillaumeTell. The portal's content really needs to be more diversified. A problem, however, is that our project has not taken assessment seriously and we can not really confirm whether or not our assessments are unbiased and/or accurate. If we are going to use an assessment rating as a basis for inclusion in the portal, then we really need to revisit assessment in a serious way. The composer project is currently in the process of reviewing all of their B class articles. Their method is both useful and effective in my opinion. Perhaps we should begin something similar at the opera project.Nrswanson (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"our project has not taken assessment seriously" - which is precisely the appeal of this project for me. Unlike some projects I could name, we produce content not assessments. "our assessments are unbiased and/or accurate". Assessments are always going to be subjective, which is why they are pretty pointless. If you know how to improve an article, improve it. --Folantin (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We may not necessarily need to take assessment seriously, but I sometimes get the feeling that nor do we take quality seriously. I mean, Opera is appallingly bad, few to none of the articles on the major composers are really at the quality they deserve, and opera articles are generally at least minimally informative, but highly unpolished. We seem more concerned with expanding out into more and more articles than ever raising any of them above the somewhat stagnant mediocrity. I just can't get that excited about that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you lead the way and show us how it's supposed to be done. There's nothing to stop you rewriting Opera. --Folantin (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Ouch, that is rather unfair shoemaker. First of all, we are a relatively small collection of editors working in a big area so there is no way that our little project can be responsible for the quality of the entire field. All we can do is improve wherever we can and a lot of our time (well at least my time and voceditenore's) is spent cleaning up horrendus messes made by other editors. Second, the project is addressing quality by our new system set up in January. Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) is a perfect example of the project working together to improve quality. Hopefully similar work will be done on this months two featured operas. Third, many editors in this project are interested in quality but quality articles take a long time to build. Some recent pet projects of mine have been Thomas Arne, Victor Herbert, and Marian Anderson, all of which are still ongoing but are now at B class thanks to me. The other members of this project have also put together several excellent articles, often in addition to the ones focused on by the project. This project is anything but stagnant, there is just a ton of work left to be done. Finally, I personally enjoy working on more obscure works, even if they will never develop into larger articles. Breadth of coverage is just as important as quality and neither should be sacrificed. Anyway, I have brought up assessment at the project talk page and I hope those who are interested will comment. Folantin gave his typical response to which I will say if you're not interested than you don't have to participate. Just edit articles as you have been and ignore the assessment of articles all together. That being said, I reiterate that assessment is necessary. Frankly, if we don't do something with assessment than there is no future for the opera portal under this new format.Nrswanson (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the first part of what NRS said. Judging from my watchlist, I'd guess there are about a dozen or so editors regularly working on opera articles, whether officially members of this project or not (BTW formal membership is not something that matters to me). Given how few of us there are, I think we've achieved quite a breadth of coverage. We have just started improvement drives to provide more depth for our "core articles", which is why I'm bemused Shoemaker is complaining about this issue right now. Besides which, in my experience creating "barebones" pages on obscure works has been a good idea - several times I've seen new users appear and turn them into fully-fledged articles. Maybe if the stubs hadn't been there in the first place, they wouldn't have bothered. "If we don't do something with assessment than there is no future for the opera portal under this new format". This is the tail wagging the dog. Why should we divert loads of time and effort into assessment drive just for the sake of a portal? Actually, I'm quite annoyed. I hurried to add material to the Pelléas et Mélisande article because everybody was saying they needed it so it could be featured on the portal this month. Now it's been summarily demoted. What kind of incentive is that? (I'll save my comments about assessment drives for another occasion.) --Folantin (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As I have said Folantin, you don't have to do it. Editors interested in assessment can participate and those who aren't do not have to. Assessment is the typical practice at wikipedia and not at all unusual. I'm not even for a mass assessment of all our articles, just the B class ones. Once they are reviewed (in a thorough written evaluation) by an independent editor and confirmed as B class or better than we can throw them into the Portal mix. That's only a total of a 101 articles to review. FYI, I was also unhappy that Pelléas et Mélisande wasn't featured. Nrswanson (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the most highly productive and knowledgeable editors I know won't have anything to do with Wiki-projects precisely because of assessment schemes. When I joined Wikipedia I was planning to work on novels but WP:NOVELS assessment drive (with their insistence on infoboxes - and ISBNs for 19th century books) put me right off and I joined Project:Opera instead. If this project goes down the same path, I might consider leaving. We already have a page [4] surveying which articles might need improving - why not expand that instead? The rest is just bureaucracy. --Folantin (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I am certainly not that kind of editor Folantin and I can't see anyone in this project making similar idiotic suggestions for assessment. I think something along the lines of what the composer project is doing would be welcome here. Their assessment process has earned positive feedback from even those, like user:kleinzach, who are wary of assessment. However, I don't think anything I say will persuade you to like anything about assessment. All I can say is that I hope to make it useful to those who appriciate it and painless for those who don't. I don't think anything I am suggesting is going to upset your editing life at the project. Cheers. Nrswanson (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, my statement was probably unfair, but I really would like to see some collaborations I could really get my teeth into, because I know we're willing to take all the time we need on them. But I'm a poor student: I just can't justify the investment in, say, 5 books on Verdi - not an unreasonable number, I have a dozen on Gilbert and Sullivan, not counting scores - if I don't know that we'll be taking work on Verdi and his operas to a high level, and don't really like working alone. If someone wants to suggest a topic, and is willing to leap into it wholeheartedly, I'll gladly pull together my resources and join in, but the way we've been working of late just makes it financially impractical for me to really participate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not intending to state the obvious, but have you ever considered trying your local library? Perhaps my city library is better than most but I usually can find at least two excellent biographies on any major composer and sometimes up to as many as a dozen. You don't necessarily have to spend money to get access to good resources. Other possibilities might be community college libraries which often are open to the public to at least browse if not actually check things out. As for things you want to work on together, suggest them for opera of the month at some point. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite good, and I have access to some specialist libraries, but, honestly, I kind of stopped borrowing from libraries after some bouts of illness made me unreliable with things I had borrowed. I tend to use them in the end stages of preparing an article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, gentlemen, that was all quite a digression!;-) Briefly, my own feelings about these issues are:

1. The Opera Project currently has over 5,400 bannered articles. The Gilbert & Sullivan project has 342. The possibilities, essential tasks, workloads, and goals are simply not comparable. I spend a good deal of my time each day simply checking the new articles, bannering them, and more often than not cleaning them up, adding cats, etc. etc.
2. To me breadth of opera coverage is essential. I get my satisfaction out of writing articles like Aureliano in Palmira or Marguerite Sylva where readers can get some useful, clearly presented and well-referenced key information about subjects which is not easily available on the internet. (Or at least not all in one place and in English) They'll never have a star on top, but I frankly don't care.
3. While I personally don't care that much about about "Featured Articles", I think an assessment of our existing articles is a good thing. Only those who are interested in working in that area have to do it. Which brings me to my last point...
4. People work best when they follow their own interests and work patterns and don't feel they "must" take on work that doesn't appeal to them. We are volunteers after all!

Now can I direct everyone's attention to the points below about the actual portal that we need to decide/discuss. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

PS To keep this page manageable I have archived the 60K of discussion (or unedifying spectacle, depending on your point of view) during the revision, re-revision and re-re-revision saga. It's available here and there's also a link to it at the top of this page. Voceditenore (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Points to decide and updates

Please put your response under the relevant point so we can keep track of this...

1. "In this month" section

I've done the March page [5] as it's... er... March day after tomorrow. Cirt has programmed it to automatically go into the portal on March 1st. Over the next few weeks, I'll fill in the other months, so they'll be ready to go. These are not writ in stone. They can be edited at any time, although make sure the links aren't to really dire articles please.;-) Everyone OK with this? Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

2. "New content" section

I still think Cirt's suggested "New content" section (either manually changed or automatically rotating) to showcase quality work from the OP monthly collaborations is an excellent idea. 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. Pelléas et Mélisande can go there for example. I would like to ask Cirt to add this section for us. Are people in agreement? Would you prefer a manually changed segment with only one article permanently on display until we change it for another one? I think I would. The past articles in this section will still be available in the archive. Answers please. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

3. "Things you can do" section

It is big 'n' ugly and some of the suggestions are not necessarily appropriate. I would like to pare it down and streamline it. Are members happy for me to go ahead and do this, after which we can discuss any further tweaking to my version? Voceditenore (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To give you an idea, I've edited this section to look like this. The old version looked like this. I changed the image to something more in keeping with the subject. I removed the entire Requested articles section as this (a) would need manual updating (b) was very ugly and space-hungry (c) didn't necessarily reflect the priorities of the project, and (d) is available on the Project page anyway. I have also removed but can easily restore:

• Add {{Portal|Opera|Operalogo.svg}} to the See also section of Opera-related articles.
• Tag the talk pages of Opera-related articles with {{WikiProject Opera}}

I'm of two minds about these. Do we necessarily want the Portal logo on every single opera-related page? Likewise, do we want every vaguely opera-related or even spuriously related article tagged with the OP banner? Like um... Space opera, Paul Potts or The Phantom of the Opera. Might cause more problems than benefits... Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just add a discreet Opera Portal link to the WikiProject Opera banner? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

These should not have been removed. They are useful points and are common on many other Featured portals' sections on Things you can do. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know they are common on many FPs. But there were other considerations. For one, the Requested articles needs maintenance to remove blue-links, and the ones placed there aren't necessarily a priority. But I'm happy to leave it. Since it's going to need maintenance anyway, I'm going to pare down the number of requested articles and get some feedback from the OP as to which ones should go in there. As for the bannering request, it can stay, but as I said above, it can sometimes create other problems, e.g. mis-bannering of spuriously or only vaguely opera-related articles, and double-bannering. In the past the OP hasn't bannered articles that are primarily under the care of our daughter (Wagner and G&S) and sister (Classical Music) projects. Both the Wagner and the Classical music projects summarily remove OP banners when theirs is already there. I'm not sure about G&S. But it's no big deal. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've been looking around at other FPs and like the solution to "Requested articles" on Portal:Architecture. I've implemented it as:

• Create or request an article on an opera-related topic.

Can we please keep it this way for the moment. It saves maintenance on the portal itself and is less bulky looking. It also allows readers to request articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I like this way, less maintenance for the Requested articles entry. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Content in the "Selected article" and "Selected biography" sections

Each time the page is viewed the content in each section rotates. Readers can also rotate articles themselves by hitting "Show new selections". I agree that the moment it is rather skewed to G & S, which gives a distorted view of the subject, especially if those articles and (pictures) all come up at once. At the moment, 1/3 of the "Selected articles" are G & S related (full list here) as are 1/2 of the "Selected biographies" (full list here). Technically, the articles in these sections should be at GA or Featured class. Since we are not going for Featured Portal status in the near future, we could add some very clear (and formally assessed) B class articles, e.g. Parsifal to the rotation as well as remove any article we feel inappropriate from the rotation. Are there any articles for these sections that people would like to nominate for addition or deletion? Answers below under the appropriate headings please. Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• General comments about the content/mechanics of these sections:

• "Selected article" - suggested additions:

• "Selected article" - suggested deletions:

• "Selected biography" - suggested additions:

• "Selected biography" - suggested deletions:

I am fine with lowering the quality standards to be B-class and higher, instead of GA-class and higher. It would be inappropriate to lower standards below that. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that Parsifal is GA-class. Are all articles in these two subsections GA or FA? If so, we should really try to stick to that standard of quality. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All in the Selected Biographies are GA or FA except for Modest Mussorgsky which is B class. As per below, all in Selected articles are GA or FA except for Porgy and Bess, Royal Opera House, The Sorcerer and The Pirates of Penzance which are B class. At this point, I feel we should continue to have strong B class articles in the rotation, although not necessarily the current ones. The primary purpose of a portal is to provide an introduction to a topic. As has been noted by several OP members, the current choices have already led to giving a very skewed view of the subject. It's much bigger, more diverse, and more international than Gilbert and Sullivan and comic opera. (There are already 5 G&S related articles in Selected articles and 6 in Selected biographies.) And Beijing opera is only tangentially related to the western art-form, not part of it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, let's drop the standards of the portal for those sections to B-class quality. No objections. Cirt (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Content in the "Selected picture" section

The current list of images in rotation is here. As you can see there are only 4 at the moment. Two of them are Gilbert & Sullivan related and three of them are black and white engravings, which in the size used for the portal can look a little "samey" and uninteresting. We can and should add other photos. Optimally they should be "Featured" ones, but they don't have to be, as long as they are public domain, qood quality, and interesting, for example Shoemaker's Holiday's recent Aida extravaganza. Responses below, but if there aren't any in by Monday or Tuesday, I'll start adding a few more myself. Voceditenore (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• General comments about the content/mechanics of this section:

• "Selected picture" - suggested additions:

Well, I could do some others, I guess. Probably can get us at least four or five full colour posters. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Camille Saint-Saëns
• 
  Thespis (Already an FP)
• 
  The Desert Flower (William Vincent Wallace)
• 
  The Fortune Teller

About half of these are likely to be FPs, the rest are pretty good, though. Seriously, though - am I the only person here able to do this kind of thing? I'm worried that if I stop, then there's noone there to replace me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I've now added the FP Carmen poster; the FP Tristan un Isolde photo; and the FP Aida poster to the Portal rotation. Of the remaining images above, I'm going to hold off on stuff that's not an FP and especially ones related to G & S and operetta, as the portal article selections and featured pix are already heavily skewed in that direction. I'll probably add the Maritana one as it's an FP but would rather wait until we have more colour pix (there's an awful lot of B&W at the moment). The Desert Flower one hasn't got an article yet. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Two more FPs from that set. I'll nominate the Desert Flower, though it kinda could use an article to go with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Tommorrow I'll add El Capitan and probably Maritana. I'm holding off on Thespis. The portal is already rather G&S heavy, both in terms of articles and pictures, and we have Thespis as one of the selected articles. Voceditenore (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a La mascotte poster, though I cannot, of course, promise FPC success. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The text/blurbs on the newly added Selected picture rotations are a bit too long, should be trimmed. Also, people are forgetting to bold and wikilink the name of the article in the blurb text. Please do that. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Opera news

Looks like something setup to eventually become stagnant and unmaintained. Who is going to maintain this subsection forever? What are the individual points sourced to? Nothing? Seems like a WP:OR violation to me (unless of course each particular point is already sourced with a cite to a WP:RS/WP:V source in the bolded-linked article)... Cirt (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It was in the original portal, so I've been maintaining it for now. But I agree with you about the potential for stagnation. Re the sourcing, I share similar concerns (see my comments above), which is why I added an inline cite for each item on the news archive page, although all of them are also sourced in the bold linked articles. I checked before I added them. One advantage of a section like that is that it allows links to a wider variety of opera articles and subjects. But I'm wondering if we should eliminate that section as it's quite laborious to maintain properly and instead expand the In this month from 4 to 8 with maybe a slightly larger image. There are plenty of sourced anniversaries in articles. I could easily double the quantity for each month. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an example of a 9 date version for In this month at Portal talk:Opera/Selected anniversaries/April. - Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for a larger image - but I would be in favor of doing the latter idea and expanding In this month from four to eight, and getting rid of that other section. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from April 12-23. But I'd be in favour of dropping the "News". I'm the only one who's ever updated it, and I don't think it's worth the work. Cirt, if you want to go ahead in making the change while I'm gone, there's a new 8 date version of "In this month" for April which includes Handel's death date (currently in "News") on Portal talk:Opera/Selected anniversaries/April. I can get the 8 date May version ready when I get back. Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay that sounds like the best option. Cirt (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We can always add and remove things from "In This Month" if it's REALLY important news. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done [6], [7]. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for Selected picture

They're not *featured*, and probably can't be: The project responsible for providing us with the Hogarth paintings didn't have that great of photography available at the time, it seems - but including one or more of the Hogarth works at A Rake's Progress would allow us to discuss the interestingly anachronistic modern opera The Rake's Progress. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Yikes! It's huge and kind of off-putting visually. Couldn't these be put in 2 columns, or even 3 since it now extends across the width of the portal? Voceditenore (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to three columns. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The template/code you used isn't supported by IE browsers (even IE8 which I'm using). I'm still seeing one long column and a ton of white space. Since most people use IE, maybe another template would be better. Take a look at User talk:Voceditenore/Articles in progress. – Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking, it appears that IE doesn't have any equivalent code as yet. I'm not quite sure what could be done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the portal now. I've done the catgories using a column format that's compatible with IE. Is it OK? Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Kinda. But if we ever change or add to the category system, this breaks: the old one was auto-generated from the category tree. I wonder if we could make this show in IE, and the other show in browsers that support it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it. Apart from the maintenance the [+] are no longer linked so what's the point of having them. Doh! Is there some kind of horizontal "tree"? Lots of featured portals use them ( Portal:Fish, Portal:Library and information science, Portal:Mathematics, Portal:Philosophy of science, Portal:Literature, etc. etc.) True they have to manually updated, but they aren't so space hungry, and we only rarely get changes in the opera categories. Or, if they're going to in a single column, can we have an image to the right like to break the white desert? Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If we can have an automated system to generate a category tree,it ought to be possible to have one to generate columns. I'd suggest filing a report at Bugzilla. In the meantime, why not push categories to the bottom? That way, if they do prove long and unwieldy, at least they wouldn't be pushing anything else down the pageShoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved this lower in the portal. I still think the current categorytree presentation is the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better there, thanks. Voceditenore (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)