Template talk:Infobox opera

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox opera template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Opera This template falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Dates

For operas with no known performances (such as those by Henrique Oswald) or where the premiere was a long time after their composition, this template needs a |composition date= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"based on" parameter

Under the entry for |based_on=, I changed "Use this to list the literary work on which the libretto was based (if any)" to "Use this to state the literary work or other subject on which..." (emphasis added for clarity), to reflect actual usage.

I reiterate: template documentation should reflect actual usage, not attempt to proscribe a usage for which actual practice demonstrates consensus.

I was reverted, with the edit summary "restore". My change should be re-implemented, for the reason given. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the vast majority of cases the parameter is actually used as described. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... because Nikkimaria busies herself with removing it. I support Andy Mabbett's phrasing because an infobox should contain the salient details of a work. If a work is based on the life of a pharaoh, it is helpful to mention that in the infobox. I know that this is almost always mentioned in the article's 1st paragraph, but so is everything else in the infobox, and that doesn't invalidate the concept of info boxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the rules to follow frequent usage, as Andy did. The basis for operas is often literary, but also often not, and should still be given. - Even the minority means many cased, many cases in which the information may be useful to readers. (Actually, whatever the documentation says, I don't understand the removal of information that may be helpful to readers.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree that it is "many cases"; it doesn't seem to be common, and the change poorly defines what "it" should be Not to mention that the proposal makes little sense in the context of the rest of the documentation for this parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a significant minority that use it as I described. The documentation should describe common usage, not merely majority usage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently not many cases because Nikkimaria removed them. Anticipating the rejoinder, "but that was done to comply with the documentation as stated": the current discussion here is exactly about that unnecessarily narrow wording which makes no sense and is against the purpose of an infobox, to "summarizes key features of the page's subject." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the above discussion, I've restored my wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order in category for unknown parameters

User:Zackmann08 recently added a check for unknown parameters. Thank you. This populated the Category:Pages using infobox opera with unknown parameters, but I'm baffled by the order of entries in that category. It's a minor nit pick and doesn't need to be fixed – it just seems inexplicable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Competent parameters

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following parameters need to be added to the opera infobox:

• Catalogue
• Opus
• Composed
• Published
• Characters
• Structure
• Characters
• Scoring
• Client
• Preceded by
• Followed by
• Premiere director
• Premiere conductor
• Premiere Performers
• First recording

See the Play & musical composition infoboxes for reference. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objections:

1. 'Characters' leads to infobox bloat (and why is it listed twice?).
2. What could be an entry for 'Structure'?
3. 'Scoring' doesn't make sense.
4. What does 'Client' mean?
5. 'Preceded/Followed' is infobox bloat; there's normally a navigation box.
6. 'Premiere director' applies to very few operas.
7. 'Premiere performers' leads to infobox bloat.

What does the section heading 'Competent parameters' mean? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: With no answer to the objections raised, I'm going to close this as not done for now. cyberdog958^Talk 02:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]