Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 115

709:: "I am deeply depressed by the prospect of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles." That said, my hat is off to those who have developed the opera templates, as the results of their considerable labors strike me as well-considered and classy. I just hope these templates fare better than some other classical-oriented ones that have been developed, only to draw repeated surreptitious deletions by parties who seem to consider anyone objecting to universal application of pop-oriented boxes to be some sort of elitist intent on subverting the common weal. In general I would feel comfortable if we were to offer guidance endorsing the new boxes' judicious use. One question: do they sufficiently allow for operas that exist in more or less coequal versions in different languages, like, say, 173:

of Spades' - why is the native name given as 'Pikovaya dama', when the native name is 'Пиковая дама' (and not, by the way, as given in the article 'Пи́ковая дама'). Nothing prevents you giving the transcription, but it is wrong to give the impression that the Latin alphabet transcription is the 'native name'. And why is 'Pique dame' given as an alternative title for English Knowledge (XXG)? It may have possibly have been used in the old days in Germany , but it is not as far as I am aware used as an alternative title today in either the UK or US, or on recordings (contrary to the feeble claim made in the citation given in the article that 'it is now also used in English' - if indeed that is a quote from the source cited, as the wording is ambiguous and the phrase I have cited is not in quotes). Best, --

1741:. It comes with a navbox on the right that doesn't show the composer's picture, only the picture's name. I don't find why, and possibly it's only me who sees it like that. I am so tempted to create an infobox instead ;) - Back to that topic, I think it's way to soon to suspend that idea. The parameter "Genre" needs more thinking before we proceed, thinking that should happen on the template talk. We could call what we say there differently (some templates have "type") and/or use "Genre" only if different from opera, - open for suggestions. We should also accept that new cases may require new thoughts. We are making first steps. My approach would be to first try one infobox a day, discuss it and make changes as needed, as for example 1310:

applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well' is one which is likely to prove optimistic in view of prior discussions; and it would therefore also be highly sanguine to assume that agreement on one (if it can be obtained) would automatically mean agreement on others. I note by the way that in its presently etiolated state, the infobox is not much different from the original Méhul template (which also I see gives 'opera in 3 acts' as a genre). So has all this discussion been, in effect, merely about the picture? As the English tabloid newspapers are wont to say, 'Why, oh why?'.--

4285:

indicating that this is one of the composer's lesser known works. The second source is an off-line dictionary of music, with the title of the article not given, so it's difficult to tell what relevance it may have without seeing the book. The third reference, as far as I can tell from the Google Books preview, has less than one sentence about the opera, and since page numbers are not given its hard to tell if there is more in this book. I don't think it was "amazing" and "vagarious" that the reviewer wanted some improvement in the referencing before accepting the article, which would only have taken a few minutes of the writer's time, since

3224:) was similarly helpful. And did not feel the operas navbox at the top at the same time was a problem, since it is more specific to the article topic. But if you replace the top navbox with an infobox, as I've said several times already, I feel you lose convenience in navigating, and gain nothing in information. However (putting in a plug for my own idea), I've often felt having always the same picture in the composer navboxes was a drawback, which is why I proposed being able to vary these, which also gives us additional opportunities to use these other portraits when they are available. -- 4788:, with an experimental 'opera-specific' picture in the template and a pic of the compser at around the time he wrote it. Opinions welcome. This is an attept to find common ground in revamping templates with inviting material and using images at the head of the article which relate to its period, without enforcing the Procrustes bed of an infobox. Doubtless the pictures, texts, etc. used could be improved, they are of course not regarded by me as sacrosanct. I do beleive howeverthat something like this adds to the interest and informative content of the aticle without being distracting.-- 674:

option. I had, I thought, made that clear at the beginning of this discussion, but it... er... got a bit de-railed, by the precipitous adding of it to articles before the discussion even got underway. Various tweaks etc. can always be made later to the box itself, if the need arises, but it's in a reasonably stable state now (after a fair amount of discussion on the template talk page), and if we do adopt it as option, it might be a good idea to let it "settle in" and monitor how it's working out for a while. Anyhow, this discussion should stay open for at least a week. Best,

735:, and decided against it, as this is the kind of detail best left to the article where it can be properly explained and contextualised, not to mention that the distinction between a revised version and something which constitutes a virtually different opera is a blurry continuum. We're always going to have a few "outliers", whether we have an infobox or not—it applies to questions of categorisation etc. as well. We also tend to treat versions quite differently from article to article, although that's again a separate issue. Sometimes, it's a brief mention, as in 3167:", and I want to live up to it. Due to history, we have different ways of passing information, and I believe that this is not only acceptable but even desirable, because different readers may want it different ways. We duplicate information from the text to the lead, to a side navbox, to a bottom navbox, to an infobox, to persondata, - all valid. Project opera has a history to navigate to other operas (and sometimes works) by the same composer on the side. More recently, composer navboxes were introduced, which typically present even more information, look at 3324:) that is currently used in articles. I've mentioned before, obviously to no effect, that transcluding or pasting whole templates, navboxes, infoboxes, etc. on this discussion page is not a great idea. They take up loads of space, make the page harder to load, and can distort the formatting in other ways. We currently have a large infobox for a Charpentier opera pasted here and a lengthy Verdi navbox. If people have experimental templates or infoboxes they want to discuss, they should put them on a sub page and 188: 917:

aware of that aspect, and most of us see a certain amount of value in it. However, I also think that, as with everything else, we need to balance several issues, including editor retention and our duty not to mislead the reader or to bury the key facts in a wall of detail. Those are my priorities and those of several other active editors here—not simply making life easy for the commercial companies data-mining Knowledge (XXG) for profit. I'm sure

31: 821:

describe the sub-genre). One possibility of making the data more useful, while not reopening discussions on display formats, would be to store some info as non-displaying. It will mean a very small amount of extra work loading the structure up in the first place. This would improve re-usability, and offer the possibility of richer meta-data. Also, if it is decided that a reader can gain valuable information from knowing if a work is an

5053:, as by a major composer, but not a major work. (I also chose it because "The Ban on Love" rings a bell, with the ban of an excellent contributor and friend still pending.) I suggest to let the discussion go for two weeks and then look at the general wording of the MoS. I would like to find out how we can find consensus (or not) amicably and with respect. I am on a self-imposed rule of one entry to a discussion per day ;) -- 2007:

covered twice, side and bottom. I understand that many readers don't even understand that they are able to uncollapse a collapsed section. We can "ask" our readers about an infobox only if we show them one, because I doubt that they will normally get to article histories and talk pages. - An opera typically gives time and location, - that's what an infobox can do, as a minimum. The navbox doesn't. --

1460:(and wildly inappropriate) boxes to articles, with no evidence that it would let up. There were at least two active members keen to have them, another who had previously suggested we think about this, some who were agnostic, and one or two who were quite opposed to them. For better or worse, there was no longer a clear consensus not to have them. (See discussions dating back to February 4923:, merely the personal opinion of one editor (and possibly another) both of whom, for whatever reason did not participate at all in the discussion re adding the proposed infobox to the article guidelines. At no point in that discussion was it proposed that the infobox was an option only to be used when there was no vertical navbox available. Please see the discussion and its summary 2115:.) My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable. It is also perfectly acceptable not to do so. If you all want to waste your time slugging it out over the issue (which mostly boils down to personal preferences), go ahead. I'm not going to get involved in these discussions any further. Please read 990:

designs closer to the role table? Also, if a new article about a Méhul opera appears, there will now be two templates to which it should be added for navigation. The more of these that we have, the more difficult it will be to add new articles to these lists and to keep them all co-ordinated. I see several disadvantages and little or no advantage with this change. --

123:. It is now in a usable state with complete documentation and three illustrative examples. It has been kept to only the most basic fields, with minimum scope for misleading oversimplification and/or bloat. The box could be a useful option in that it allows for more interesting images in the lead (although the composer's image can always be used the box). Also, the 3984:"He regarded Verdi as the greatest of living dramatic composers; and years before Shaw began writing musical criticism, when Von Bulow and others were contemptuously repudiating Verdi, Shaw was able to discern in him a man possessing more power than he knew how to use, or, indeed, was permitted to use by the old operatic forms imposed on him by circumstances." 1630:

opera itself was a man in his underpants dancing around with a huge upright pole in his hands. Apparently, even after days of rehearsals, Joan Sutherland still had no idea what the opera was about and finally asked Tippett, who told her cryptically: "It's just something inside me that I have to get out." I kind of had the same reaction as Dame Joan. Best,

2122:

accurately that there is no consensus among the members for its use. I've given my best shot at resolving this issue, which trust me, will not go away, whatever we do. Someone else can set up and monitor any future discussions, try to judge the consensus (if any), and then change the Article Guide. It won't be me. La vita è troppo bella e troppo breve.

2142:

bottom of the page doesn't seem nearly as convenient to me. For instance, if I'm trying to navigate through the articles on Wagner's operas on an iPad, I have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page to find a link to the next opera. With my shaky fingers, this is a bit of a trial. But like you say, it comes down to personal preferences. --

2071:

believer in structured information I suggest that we calmly and factually compare the pros of infobox vs. navbox (short for the collapsed box of operas by a composer, now traditionally in the right upper corner of opera articles where readers normally see an infobox). About the socalled OR, it was not my idea, but the observation (!)

4077:, Wikiquote has a single quotation with a source, and just six more unsourced quotations. Not one of them would I classify as positive about the art form. (Not that I have a problem with negative quotations as long as they are well-crafted. "Of all the noises known to man, opera is the most expensive", said (perhaps) Molière). 601:. Some members find the current vertical navbox convenient. Others actually prefer the horizontal footer (at least from past discussions). But I'm not sure that a minor inconvenience for editors (shifting to footer navboxes) necessarily outweighs the benefits of an infobox with its increased image flexibility, etc. 4804:

what that navbox actually does even less transparent to the reader than it was before. Assuming an opera infobox is a non-starter with you, it's better to have the original navbox with composer's image or (preferably, in my opinion) an illustrative image on its own at the head of the article with a footer navbox.

5142:

Part of the case is: how do we find consensus, or if not, what then? My position (see above): let's look at one example, - for five months, why not, no rush. I will not add an infobox where a side navbox is in place until something is resolved, but I will feel free to add an infobox to opera articles

5118:

to come anywhere near an agreed "general recommendation". The world is not going to come to an end if we have to proceed without one for now. However, the relentless attempts to continue rehashing this may well be the death of this project. Can we please take a break from all this and revisit it in a

4748:

Hi Adam, thanks for the help! Re, altimage, perhaps it makes it more clear the template has a default image, so i suppose that may be partly why i picked it, but that could be covered in the documentation. Lot's of params have default values. (Also, I wasn't sure whether it needed a different name or

4284:

Dear opera lovers: I would like to speak in defense of the Afc declination of the above article. The notice did not say that the opera was non-notable, only that the references weren't supporting it. Of the three references shown, one is a CD review by a knowledgeable reviewer, who praises it while

3959:

For what it is worth, I think this comment should be seen in the long tradition of anecdotal 'quotes' about operas which have entered legend and "common knowledge" as having been said, but cannot be academically traced. E.g. Emperor Josef's 'Too many notes, my dear Mozart', Bulow saying that 'Rienzi

3853:

Actually, I've had a much closer look at the attributions "on the internet" (as opposed to books and journal articles) and it's is not quite what it seems. The concert programs/announcements/reviews I was referring to merely say it's has been described as "Verdi's greatest opera", but don't attribute

1368:

Thanks for citing the OP guidance. This is explicit: 'the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, '. Thus, the genre here is simply 'opera'; the number of acts (per the guidance) is not part of the genre. You can either specify the

1325:

I would tend to agree with Robert that the use in this article is illustrative of more general problems with the box, e.g. the problems of updating the navigation to other operas, the problem with squashing certain types of images into the box, and the use of the field "Genre", and as such is fine to

1293:

I apologize if I put this in the wrong place, but I think the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general applicability to related questions which will arise when similar infoboxes are added to many other operas as well. It should probably be of concern to most editors who

1211:

I think you have a good point about not using the picture of the composer, - it was only used because you found the other too small, remember. I will try now to have the "costums" picture larger in that one opera, as a test, not changing the others. - We may also think about the composer's name above

1163:

I'm not sure what you mean, or if you understood what I meant by units, but I was suggesting that if an infobox is added to one opera by a composer, then it might be a good idea to gradually add it to the other operas by the same composer so that one set is changed over completely before moving on to

1132:

I think we need a fairly lengthy period to watch how these boxes settle in and to see what other sorts of problems crop up and to re-evaluate their use, if necessary. In the meantime, they should be added in as consistent a way as possible and starting with low profile articles. I'm going to be frank

1056:

because it highlights some of the potential problems with this infobox and its application in general. Re the picture, I decided not to discuss and put the composer back at the top and the costumes where they were, for the reasons outlined by Robert above. That was most definitely not an improvement,

527:

has been a featured article for 2 years without this "accessibility feature" and now it needs to have an infobox added immediately? Obviously, if you're going to start adding infoboxes to articles without waiting for the discussion here, you will. I simply do not think it's helpful at this point, and

246:

i still favor the composer navbox at the upper right of the article. Despite all the nice work done on this info box, the navbox is much more useful, and more convenient in this location than at the bottom of the page. I also favor making this consistent. If there is a vertical navbox for a composer,

172:

I am deeply depressed by the prosepct of the amount of debate which will arise from this initiative, which would be better spent on creating articles. But just to kick off - and quite apart from any debate as to whether such templates are appropriate - as regards your proposed template for the 'Queen

5048:

It is only for Fatinitza (a GA) and the other works by the composer (for consistency) because I don't want more discussions but finish one first. (There are several operas with an infobox - see my user page for some that were recently developed by Voceditenore and me - but those didn't have a navbox

3002:

Can people please try to reduce the drama? I respect both David and Gerda and would rather that neither were subjected to whatever weird sanctions Arbcom or the crackpot admins at WP:AE think up. (BTW because of said crackpots, I have a high chance of retiring completely from WP as most arbs seem to

2659:

I am learning. The need to discuss came only now. Verdi bottom navbox was not by me, and added in March. I inserted Méhul and Massenet, yes, and still think they are/were valid additions because of the virtues pointed out above. I see no conflict having both in one article, so there seemed no reason

1629:

Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, Almost-Instinct! I've added one source to the talk page and will look for more for you. I was at the 1996 ROH performance. I'll see if I can dig out the programme. Tippett himself came out for a curtain call, but I'm ashamed to say that all I can remember of the

1521:

is to be performed at the Proms this year; our page is quite basic, in particular very little is there of performance history. I'm about to go plough through Google searches to see what I can find out, and will start dumping the info on the talk page. If anyone has any paper-based info that they can

1491:

Fast forward... There is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that we do not recommend its use. I've given my best shot at resolving

1196:

over the picture of Méhul. If casual readers do not glance down at the caption, they may initially assume it is a picture of Joseph, the subject of the opera. If the Infobox is used, it should have a different picture rather than the portrait of Méhul. (However, since the infobox adds nothing to the

1076:

Thanks for comments, we are learning ;) - I bolded the composer because of the bold "other" title and because a vaguely remember a comment regarding that, but will not do it again. I would have been happy to refer to the specific Bible source but it was not given in the article, and I had no time to

580:

Trying to get this discussion back on track... We currently have 2,088 articles on individual operas. I think we have to accept that adding this box as an option to the Article Guide means that for quite a while, probably 100 years :-), opera articles will no longer have one consistent "look"—they'd

472:

It was a joint work with Brianboulton, and with the community for that matter. I am not getting involved with this. I do not intend to take any action, but that is not because I like or dislike it, but because a discussion is under way about it, (here, though better on article talk). You all work

368:

where you invited people there to "help discuss". I gave a link to this discussion. I would appreciate it if simultaneous discussions were not started all over the place. The original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or

5113:

Several members are so sick of these constant, fruitless, and at times personalised discussions dominating our project talk page that they've taken it off their watch lists. Lord knows how many prospective members we may have lost in the last few months after they've seen this talk page. It's quite

4378:

I haven't thrown it in at the moment because the subject is so out of sync with the rest of the OoM. Maybe for a later month? Even so, in my experience calls for bringing an article to FA at the XoMs generally have little effect. They have more effect here on the talk page or by contacting specific

3915:

I agree, especially since there are references that explicitly say that it is widely used. I guess I wasn't clear. I meant that when talking about Shaw's views on the Requiem, "Verdi's greatest opera" should not be attributed to him. There is simply no evidence for it. Attributing "Verdi's greatest

2933:

I post this here, as well as on the Wagner project talk page. Users may like to know that, despite the controversiality surruroounding the infobox issue3, particualtly at present when editors' beahaviour re infoboxes is the subject of an arb case, Gerda Arendt has chosen this moment unilaterally to

2245:

Clarification: it's a "competition" for the space on the top right of an article, where project opera traditionally has a navigation possibility to other operas/works by the same composer, called "side navbox" by me now, for differentiating. It serves a purpose where there are only a few such other

2233:

Should not have to be an either/or. Infoboxes and Navboxes do two different things, the infobox at the top of an article provides data for that article, the navbox helps the reader find the NEXT article a person might want to read, hence is placed at the bottom... People are less likely to want to

1345:

Of course there are numerous sub-genres, although their names are not particularly illuminating in many cases, apart from historical interest, and even then, there is lot of variation in the listing of the "sub-genre" (often simply a descriptive term) for the same opera, blurry boundaries, synonymy

1266:

Third: What on earth is the point of it? And what can Gerda mean when she says 'The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information'. In what way is this an 'accessibility' tool? If this is the justification for it, no one has given any evidence-base that

1148:

Agreed: better no overlinking, better an infobox where there is a navbox already, better if not FA, no red links in navboxes (but I was used to see more than hundred red links in the Bach cantata navbox when I started, now all turned blue). Not agreed: "mad keen", "randomly", and "working in units"

1119:

I also agree with Robert that one HUGE disadvantage of this infobox when there are no horizontal footer navboxes for that composer is that everything must be added by hand to each infobox when a new opera is created, not to mention recreating the list each time the infobox is added to another opera

989:

is not an improvement. It removes the portrait of the composer, makes the image of the costume designs so small that the role names are difficult to read, and otherwise only repeats information that is already included in the lead of the article. And isn't it contextually better to keep the costume

557:

I won't repeat my previous reservations but simply note that whoever predicted errors creeping in on infoboxes is right – as neatly proved on the draft Carmen one. I also feel it very optimistic that these will not in time balloon, as the same arguments for starting them in the first place can also

322:

You don't add that it was first performed in a Swedish translation, an "accident" of opera scheduling. That kind of thing belongs in the article, not the box. Gerda, the whole point of the box is to keep it simple. The title in Swedish was also "Lolita". Saying that a navbox to other operas by that

4803:

I found this both confusing and distracting. The image and caption look awful inserted as a thumbnail (these kinds of images in the navbox should be properly coded, if they're going to be used at all). However, the lack of the composer's image coupled with the cryptic collapsed "Operas" list makes

4661:

I have no objection to the botom navbox, but I don't think we have to remove the current opera navboxes at the top, just because a bottom navbox has been added. If we have to choose, I would prefer the one at the top. And I don't think it should be cluttered up with bits of info generally found in

2006:

is an option supported by this project, see its Manual of style. Instead of seeing articles from the standpoint of "their" authors, I would be interested in knowing what readers think about the helpfulness of an infobox on the specific opera vs. a navbox of the other operas by a composer, which is

1270:

Fouth: 'Opera in three acts' is not a genre, it is a description. 'Opéra comique' might be a genre description if it was accurate (I'm not sure it is). If you can't cite (in the article) what genre the opera belongs to, it is actually fundamentally misleading to put anything to this effect in the

916:

when the box was being developed. I'd suggest that discussion about the specific details and structure of the box, proposed future changes etc. take place there, so we can keep track of it as the box develops rather than diffusing it here. Re the general issue of metadata, I think everyone here is

673:

Just nipping in before I go. I tend to agree with you, Smerus, which is why I pointed out some potential objections/problems, others might have. This discussion is about whether there should be some new Project guidance on using an opera infobox, based on the proposed model, i.e. offering it as an

4832:

Better to restore the navbox. A vertical drop down list is easier to read and it's far more convenient to use, than these (also collapsible) horizontal lists at the bottom. They should be reserved for links that are less important. Besides there's nothing obscure about collapsible lists of links.

4603:

The result is shown to the right here. This would allow us to vary the portrait that is displayed for a particular opera. For instance, a portrait of the composer as he appeared around the time the opera was written might be used. If the parameter "altimage" is omitted, the default image would be

2121:

As I said, there is nothing to stop members who have now seen how the box works in actual articles (and the other implications of its use) to seek consensus to deprecate the template, i.e. state actively in our article guide that while it is available, we do not recommend its use, or perhaps more

1644:

I have a programme of a Welsh National Opera production (Ian Watt-Smith/Richard Armstrong) which I saw in Leeds in 1976 and another (somewhere) of a 1985 Opera North production, also in Leeds (Tim Albery/David Lloyd-Jones) - I'll try to dig them out, plus the programme for the 2005 ROH revival if

1563:

Midsummer Marriage is from before the change of style that came about thanks to the composition of King Priam. So if you like Child Of Our Time, you have a good chance of enjoying The Midsummer Marriage, which is lyrical and intense. The most commonly encountered bit is the Ritual Dances from the

650:

Sorry, I'm not entirely clear about the nature and location of 'this discussion'. Is 'this discussion' about what an infobox might look like, or about whether there should be some new guidance on infoboxes, based on the proposed model, by the Project? These are two quite separate issues. I am not

1383:

And by the way.....a brief reading of the brief article itself showed, among other things, clunky writing, over- and under-linking, repetition of information (some of it false), and text under inappropriate headings. I have tried to correct these issues. It does suggest however, that work on the

769:

One of the reasons why I support making the recently developed infobox as an option (and spent the time helping to develop it and keep it simple) is that it is probably our best chance of avoiding these depressing, cyclical time-sinks. Up to now, we have had the situation where half-baked "test"

4293:

bring the article to your attention. Couldn't you just have thanked him and indicated that you'd like to have this happen again in the future? I review hundreds of articles, and I often leave notes about submissions at Wikiproject talk pages, but the derogatory comments above will make me less

2270:

As Voceditenore predicted, the option to have an infobox resulted in discussions on several opera talkpages. I suggest that we handle there aspects of the particular work, but keep central pros and cons here. I still miss in the above section any pro for the side navebox in cases where a footer

2141:

I sympathize with your feelings on this. You've spent a lot of time on this issue and obviously tried to broker compromises. BTW, I don't entirely agree with your statement "where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable." The navbox at the

1018:

The "two templates" are temporary in a state of transition. Perhaps the composer deserves a bottom navbox on his 250th birthday, to start having just one template right away? There we could have his other operas as red links, with no need to change anything when a new one is added. - Many other

801:

I think this box fulfills that and in addition gives us greater flexibility in illustrating articles, and could be a positive improvement for many of them. I've gone through all the past discussions here on developing an opera infobox, and all the editors participating were either in favour (in

2644:'s opinion above. And therefore I am not interested in discussing the virtues or otherwise of the bottom navbox, which seems to me to be, albeit not grossly intrusive, entirely superfluous. What is the point of repeating information in articles - and of repeating the same old arguments here?-- 2070:

I don' read it as a mandate but an option. I use the option, I offer content, the author(s) get a feedback of how someone independent understands the article, I get reverted, I don't object. I am not used to ask permission for my edits, especially not when supported by a guideline. As a strong

1837:

One thing that the Joseph discussion has showed is that the original article was sorely wanting. It's a bit better now but still rather basic. The inadequacies of the article meant a lot of toing-and-froing over the proposed infobox. So may I gently suggest that before anyone roars ahead with

1336:

The introduction is normally in the present tense, and should begin with the opera's title in bold italics (with English translation where appropriate), the genre (opera, or a more specific sub-genre, e.g. operetta, zarzuela, etc.), the number of acts, the composer, librettist, language of the

820:

It's a shame that there's so little data reuse possible in the current state of the proposed draft infobox. For instance, the flattening of every single work to the undifferentiated category of "opera" means that extra work needs to be done to create, say, a list of works (where it is usual to

1309:

Thanks for this explanation: but I really think it would be correct to have the discussion on the article talk page (which presently does not even note that a discussion is taking place here). The assumption that 'the arguments, although apparently specific to this case, have more general

1014:

An infobox is meant to repeat, the list of other works is even an addition to the lead, also the link to the list of operas sooner than under the heading "Opera". I might want to point out why the date format of the premiere is preferable to the one in the article but was warned not to do

905:

If there is a referenced sub-genre, the linked term can be put in parentheses, e.g. "Opera (dramma giocoso) in 4 acts". However, do not list the sub-genre if it would lead to misleading oversimplification. Sub-genre distinctions can be very blurry, and are best explicated in the article

1585:

If anyone can remember foreign productions off the top of their head, that would give me something to go searching for. I've chanced upon productions in San Fran, NY and Stockholm. Presumably there must have been some in Germany? To my surprise there isn't a German WP page on the opera

2736:, the institution of which in politeness might have been discussed with the Opera and/or Wagner projects and with the main contributing editors to the article. As that wasn't undertaken, it can be carried out now on the article's talk page, and I am notifying the projects concerned.-- 2660:

to discuss a clear improvement. What we need to discuss now is the request to have only one, because Verdi was removed without discussion from most of his operas. - If both are fine in one article, no discussion is needed, but then Verdi's operas should be restored, and Massenet's. --

1326:

discuss here. As to problems of the use specifically in that article, well, yes, I would say to bring further discussion there. Incidentally, I don't have a problem with using genre like this in the box in the sense that opera is a broad genre of theatrical art. Note the OP guidance

581:

have two. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, or at least so bad that we simply fossilize everything as it has been for the last 6 years. Also, there are currently a lot of obscure opera articles which have don't a composer navbox either. And we already have articles like

730:

Responding just to the point about versions, so as not to mix it up with my tome below, which is on the general principle at hand. "Guglielmo Tell" could be added as "Other title", with "Guillaume Tell" used as "native title". We discussed the possibility of a "versions" field at

2035:

Gerda, there is no mandate for anyone to make unilateral changes; and as you are aware, such changes will not necessarily have the support of editors. Readers don't seem to be deluging us with requests for extensive infoboxes, so your assumptions on what they might like are pure

514:

I happen to agree that the infobox is an improvement on the old navbox in that article, but that's not the point. I repeat, the original plan was to develop the box to a reasonably stable, usable state, then bring it here for discussion about whether or not to provide this as an

4991:

The "back and forth" on the various talk pages of articles has basically ended with no clear consensus at all (and some did not mention the navbox at all) The thrust of those discussions was that some editors are so opposed to the opera infobox that they prefer just about

1164:

another composer, rather than leaving several opera composers whose opera articles are inconsistently presented. On the other hand, if in a few months time project members decide to deprecate the box, then we would have to remove it in units too. So you may have a point.

633:

I'll be in deepest darkest Tuscany for the next week, with only intermittent access, if at all. In the meantime, I've left notes on the talk pages of all the members who participated in the March discussion, letting them know about the new box and this discussion. Best,

4833:

They're found everywhere on the internet, even (believe it or not) in the Knowledge (XXG) left-hand side bar (of all places), where there isn't even the explicit word "show". I find it hard to take these particular objections to the Composer navbox very seriously. --

3773: 597:) that include the composers' other (non-opera) stage works. But, if we do add it to the Guide and editors start adding it to articles, I do think that as a project we should priortise making all the operas by a single composer consistent, rather than adding the box 323:

composer is available (however you do it) does not belong in the infobox about the opera, especially when that navbox is right there at the bottom of the page. If it's not at the bottom of the page, then list the operas in the box in the collapsible "other" field.

1471:

In March, after gallons of virtual ink had been spilled, I proposed a plan that we work on an infobox that "does least harm" and when it was in a reasonably complete state that we discuss whether there was a consensus to add the box to our list of templates as an

5021:

I would not go near any side navbox right now ;) - Can we have a decent discussion of the one example mentioned below (with the arb case watching), and then talk again about the MoS? I would prefer if we could come up with a general recommendation, instead of me

4935:. Set up a discussion, notify all the project members, monitor it daily to keep it on track, leave it open for at least two weeks for comment and then gauge the consensus based on the comments from all the actual participants for changing what we currently have. 3107:

I read that, but wasn't sure of the result of the debate, and wanted to avoid too much stepping on toes as a somewhat marginal member of the project (I mainly do images and code for it, though, admittedly, it's been a while since I did any truly major code work.

2817:

Dear Montanabw, your pestering of me across different pages is getting ever so slightly wearisome. Gerda and I understand each other pretty well; both she and I are grown up. Do you have nothing better to do than to go around libelling other editors? Please read

2639:

discuss, you stick them up en masse before any discussion. If you do not practise what you preach, you lay yourself open to severe criticism, and possibly formal complaint. 'Consistency' starts with edtors. My contibution to the discussion: I entirely agree with

4856:, quote: "Anecdote: I've never witnessed a friend/colleague click a button without prompting; and I have pointed them out to numerous people, all of whom were surprised. Hidden sections are hostile to readers." - I will not mention the unspeakable thing ;) -- 4135:. Note that all quotes appearing there are required to have a stated source, although in some cases these can be from anthologies which have been published in print (not websites). You can find the source by clicking on the link at the top of each quote, e.g. 4975:, which is hardly a high profile page, so has not received the attention of, or been of concern to many editors. My edit was based on the observation of the results of all this to-and-fro, and what appears to me to be the current actual state of affairs. -- 4996:

else at the head of the article regardless of its appropriateness or usefulness. Conversely, others are so pro-infobox that they want that at the head of the article regardless of its usefulness or appropriateness. Thus the articles simply returned to their

4342:. August tends to be slow, with many people on holiday, so we'll see how it goes. We can do the same thing for the run up to Britten's centenary in November. In the meantime, I'm off to Italy for a month with limited internet access (Hooray!) and unlimited 1294:

participate in this probject. That is why I put the discussion here. (I admit however, that I was not editing when the prior discussions concerning this infobox occurred, and I have not taken the time to read the archived discussions. Perhaps I should.) --

4646:

The idea would be good, if only Verdi hadn't a bottom navbox which covers much more than his operas and makes the side navbox redundant. Save it for composers who don't have a bottom navbox? - I actually would prefer to create a bottom navbox for those.

373:

in our Article Guide. The discussion has just started and I don't think is helpful to start adding it to articles immediately and/or proposing it on the talk pages of other articles. It completely muddies the waters and makes the whole thing look like a

616:

Thanks for your thoughts, but I don't think it's a problem. Actually the infobox "looks" quite like the former right-corner navbox, especially if the image is the one of the composer. - I see it just as an addition, not a major change. Patiently yours,

3408:

I think it's appropriate to put a removed infobox on the specific article's talk page for discussion. I was talking about pasting infoboxes and navboxes here on the project talk page not being a great idea. But again, that's just my personal opinion.

1057:

and actually a detriment. The infobox does not work well when displaying images like this. Also don't bold the composer, and don't link an extremely common city like Paris. I tweaked the premiere place slightly to make it a little clearer and removed

1267:

this enhances 'accessibility' in any way. The box simply repeats, with a confusing picture, exactly the information in the brief lead. If something doesn't add to an article, as Gerda admits its the case here, it should be removed from that article.

5007:. Having said that, it may be useful to add a caveat wording to the effect that replacing an existing vertical navbox with an infobox on long-established articles may encounter opposition because not all members of the project support that option. 1846:, but the article is very thin to say the least. If there is editorial energy to spare, could it, in the first instance at least, be devoted to the article? That is, after all, what WP:OPERA is here for. The decorations can be considered later. -- 951:

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 ;).

1369:

no. of acts in as separate line of the box (if you really must), or you can leave it in the text of the article. As I note this topic is now becoming somewhat schizophrenic between here and the article talk-page, I am copying this comment there.--

2040:. Please discuss case by case in the talk page for each opera, and one at a time, as we don't all have lots of spare time to deal with lots of things simultaneously. I suggest you might revert any changes you have already made in this respect.-- 2890:

Smerus, I have only responded on a couple of pages where you have attacked Gerda. Apparently you can dish it out but you can't take it. I'd advise the purchase of a mirror because you are being a bully even if you can't see it for yourself.

4200:

Not a lot of people are aware of the Opera Portal, or Knowledge (XXG) Portals in general, including editors. The Opera Portal averages between 20 and 30 page views a day., although for some reason it spiked to nearly 70 last December. Best,

3570: 3064:

Right, since we're updating navboxes, I'd like to ask: Is it alright to put, say, a poster of the opera in there? Because, in some cases, it'd make the most sense to put the composer picture somewhere else, such as the background section.

2103:, particularly when added to long-established articles, is that it if any editors object, they can revert it then discuss on the talk page. It is perhaps most useful and less controversial for operas which don't have a header navbox, e.g. 1875:

The purpose of infoboxes is to repeat key points from the article. If you object to them on that basis, please set up an RfC to remove them from Knowledge (XXG), in order that the level of community support for you view may be determined.

1128:

ones filled with red links, please. For operas which do have a horizontal navbox seriously think of working in units, i.e. change over all the operas by one composer, rather than randomly skipping around adding an infobox here and there.

3829:

I'd feel happier about working it in somehow if everyone could agree on whether it was "opera" or "work", but there's an even split. It's quite possibly derived from a paraphrase of the quote supplied by VdT, which would make it "work".

3136:

It looks like you can't avoid stepping on some toes ;) - If you are personally without passion for one side or the other, how about preferring not to step on the ladies's toes? (It's also the style of all recent DYK articles on opera.)

3540:

I haven't got the time for this one, and I really prefer 19th century French and Italian stuff. It was completely panned by most critics. Here are some reviews, if anyone wants to take it on (they're quite amusing in their invective):

2508:

If a few people had not jumped to conclusions on the "Wagner affair", Knowledge (XXG) would have fewer comments, more content. I am glad about the constructive discussion on Fatinitza and listening to yesterday's Bayreuth Siegfried ;)

4894:

I will not revert but would like to see it restored and a change discussed first. The change to "... on individual operas for which a vertical composer navbox is inapplicable." is the opposite to the (not yet archived) words by Voce,

3631:

My first new article in a long time. If anyone has access to a German-language libretto or score, please update the names, and change the cites for the names. I had three options, I went with the one I thought was nearest the German.

3121:

As Voceditenore pointed out once, there are no important and marginal members ;) - If you can add something pro side navbox, it would be interesting. - The loss of the Verdi templates, however, is serious and hopefully not permanent.

1123:

First, restrict adding the infobox to articles for which a horizontal composer navbox is already available. Editors who are mad keen to add these infoboxes, should take responsibility for seeing that such navoxes are created, and no,

3280:

It should be in every article that it links to, at least in collapsed state. It also may be expanded, who knows,- that's the great thing about templates, you change one spot, and all articles are improved. - However, it was reverted

1212:

the image, at least in cases where he is pictured. Such design questions should be raised at the template talk. - The infobox should not ADD to the article, it's an accessibility tool for the SAME information, may I say that much? --

5099:. The vast majority are related to debates about infoboxes and navboxes with comments simultaneously going all over the place and nowhere, and many of them containing unseemly sniping and bickering on both sides. If we include 1676:

I've pasted in some of GT's info to the talk page, where I've been adding lots of links and from which I'm getting an idea of the performance narrative - can we continue there please, so I can unfollow this page once again? ;-)

3758:"It may be that, as with Handel, his operas will pass out of fashion and be forgotten while the Manzoni Requiem remains his imperishable monument. Even so, that alone, like Messiah will make his place safe among the immortals." 1091:

Frankly, in a case like that, it may be better to leave it blank. The field was meant for cases where specific literary works formed the basis of the libretto. If you feel compelled to, put something like: "Biblical story of

1061:

from based on. That field is for specific literary works which were the principal basis for the libretto. It is a misleading oversimplification to say Book of Genesis, as the opera is loosely based on only one story from it.

3979:

Thank you for that strike out, Smerus. :) Seriously though, although Shaw had not seen all of Verdi's operas, he was a great admirer of him as an opera composer based on the ones he had seen. According to Shaw's biographer:

4631:, since for Meyerbeer we have a variety of portraits made at different times in the composer's life. Would this be an option other editors would be interested in having available? Are there any objections to adding it? -- 4847:

What we see now doesn't say "opera" until the last word of the longish caption. - I think any vertical navbox is superior in arrangement to the narrow "drop-down". - The "obscurity" of anything collapsed was observed by

152:

and discuss here whether we should add this as an option in our Guide pages. To keep this discussion on track, any detailed suggestions for amendments/improvements, and examples of alternative boxes should be made at

1944:, in which there did not appear to be consensus for this change, and it was changed back. But one editor went ahead in spite of that and changed it for all of that composer's operas. I don't find that acceptable, -- 5123:

and their aftermath. If infobox/navbox woes crop up at individual articles, leave a brief note here for editors who might feel like participating on the talk pages of those articles and simply leave it at that.

4416:

Just fyi regarding the operas. I am in the process of working my way through every article and adding the "Composition history" and "Music" sections where they are missing, as many were for the early operas in

3879:. They are not reliable sources. I don't think you'll find any actual quote from Shaw which states baldly that it was his "greatest work" either. Brahms said of it "Only a genius could have written such a work" 3392:

I thought that the best place to discuss an infobox which is removed from an article would be that article's talk page. Right or wrong? - For now, I place them on the templates under discussion mentioned above,

3798:

Even if the quote's factual attribution to Shaw is shaky, it has, as Voceditenore pointed out, gained wide currency, including the attribution. Not mentioning that in the Requiem article seems disingenuous. --

2319:. Having to edit this list in the infobox for every opera by Massenet is going to be quite tedious. I don't think this should be done this way. A single editable page with the list that can be included in 3930:

By all means, feel free to add it. I won't, for two reasons .. (1) we don't have the source for the short punchy version, so it's going to be either short+unsourced or lengthy, and (2) the link above to

4248:. Thanks for letting us know. The vagaries of the AfC never cease to amaze me. It had 3 references to reliable sources, is an opera by a very notable composer, and the title was already red-linked from 1407:

Navboxes should run horizontally, at the foot of the article, rather than in the "infobox" location, as they do in most of Knowledge (XXG). If this is an issue on a large number of articles, I'm sure

275:

That kind of "non-information", i.e., sending the reader to the bottom of the same page or sending them off to a completely separate template page, does not belong in the infobox, in my view, and I'm

2563:. I don't mind to have both on one article. The latter template was improved, no problem with that. But then the other one was removed without discussion. Does that have support? Not mine. I started 2752: 3021:

Make that "rein" them in (LOL). Do note myself and one other editor have decided to ratchet down our own drama. Things rarely go well for anyone on any side at the drahmahz boards, it's true...

2246:

works, and where there is no infobox, if you ask me: However, I think to offer navigation away from an article on top, to a reader who just entered it, is no concentration on the given article. --

2633:

Gerda, you are saying one thing and doing another. 'We need to discuss where a composer navbox should be and what it should contain. Example: Giuseppe Verdi. I go for a bottom navbox...' But you

2021:

I don't read that as a mandate to use it, and I don't see there is a consensus to make these changes. In fact I now believe rather strongly it should be removed from the guidelines altogether. --

2200:

Someone will be able to add the pros for the present navbox, besides "I like it" and "We always did it that way", then we can take a look. I don't intend to add any opera infoboxes right now. --

1820:(ec, Andy) formatted the second librettist, who seemed not of equal importance in the article, but is welcome ;) - Any number can be shown, - if too many of a kind, the list can be collapsed, -- 128: 3738:

I can't find the original quote where Shaw called it his "greatest opera". Although that assertion is made in various concert programme and liner notes, I wonder if it's apocryphal. Note that

3201:

If an infobox is created for an opera by a composer who has a bottom navbox, it can replace a side navbox without losing information, - the reader will still have the navigation possibilities.

4763:

All these features are now added, by the way. The caption was probably the hardest one to add - the core template didn't support it, so I had to do some major work to add captions back in.

845:

Actually, we have lists of operas for every major composer (and most of the minor ones as well). Virtually all of them already include the sub-genres. The vast majority of them were made by

1484:, which remained opened for over two weeks, with members notified again. My reading of the consensus of that discussion (and I can only go by what people actually said) was to add it as an 806:

it was succinct and reasonably well-thought out. The main problem before was the worry that developing one would entail a distracting time-sink. But the main donkey-work has now been done.

4492:

Just in case anyone has ever wondered... In the week and a bit between the final putting together of a performance history section and the performance at the Proms last night our page for

146:

of the main OP page, with the proviso that it is not obligatory, and that they should be used with common sense and an awareness of the needs of particular articles. Please take a look at

4853: 4818:

Va bene, I shall go with your second option when I have a mo, as this idea has not found general favour either here or on the article talk page, and we will see what people say to that.--

4226: 3039: 519:

in our Article Guide and to discuss how best to implement the change, if there's a consensus for it, because it has a lot of implications for the previous consistency of opera articles.

210:

in the US it was, up to the 1990s, (?still is) given the title 'Pique dame'. Mystifying. But if it's a usage, it's a usage, of course. I am correcting the Russian title in the article.--

4084:

and is something like: "I am often asked why it takes 15 minutes to say 'I love you' or to die. The answer is that, in opera, we concentrate on the really important things in life".

3937:, tells us that Shaw was commenting with no knowledge of Don Carlos, Boccanegra or Forza. These absences (particularly the first) rather detract from the value of Shaw's POV (IMVHO). 887:

begins to emerge. For that reason I think infoboxes should be used when possible and that over-simplification, while making them easier, does not do justice to WP:Opera or to WP. --

4569:. I've also done some basic post-merge clean up but the article could still use a thorough copyedit and formatting of the references. The relevant maintenance tags have been added. 3897:

So it's not by Shaw, but it's a widely used phrase. Isn't verifiability what Knowledge (XXG) demands? And the punch of the phrase comes from describing the Requiem as "his greatest

778:

etc. with resulting unfocused, rambling, and sometimes disruptive discussions started all over the place. Like it or not, this will keep happening, unless we develop an infobox for

3668:

That's what the sources say. The context makes it clear the key word is "full-length" - his previous operas were shorter pieces - not a distinction between "opera" and "operetta".

418:. Your new comment and section was misleading. If you meant it as a new proposal to add the box to that article. Then you should have said so, not imply that people should discuss 127:, which currently are the standard "top of article" devices, are now duplicated in many cases by the new horizontal footers that we have for many of the major opera composers. See 3312:

Re Gerda's comment above about how the title of this talk page was being oddly italicised... It appears to be the experimental navbox that Robert has transcluded here. I went to

713:? Sorry if my quick skim of the discussion page missed that issue, but if they don't it may be a matter worth considering there--I don't mean to derail discussion further here! 2533:

We need to discuss where a composer navbox should be and what it should contain. Example: Giuseppe Verdi. I go for a bottom navbox, open, covering many aspects, well organized:

1476:. That approach had reasonable agreement. All active members who were not already engaged in the seemingly endless discussions, were notified, and also invited to give input at 279:

against that. This has been discussed at length in Archive 113. There is, however, a facility in the infobox to actually list the other operas by the composer, as in Example 3.

543:

I would prefer that it be removed, until such time as there is broad agreement. Really, I did not want to be dragged into this and I'm not best pleased by this development.--

3328:

to them. Ditto for images to be discussed. Simply link to the file or at most use a very small sample image (max 100px). People can click through to see the larger version.

3960:

was Meyerbeer's best opera', (and Hitler saying that 'with Rienzi, it all started'), Newman calling Tosca 'a shabby little shocker', etc. Personally I would leave it out.

3551: 2119:

above. Read all of it—it's not that long. It re-caps the story for those of you who did not participate in the discussions or in designing the box and are now objecting.

1522:

add, that would be very helpful. In fact almost certainly better than what I'm about to find. ;-) And then we can have a go at patting the info into shape. Listening to

2957:

Indeed I chose the occasion to complete the Ring, expecting your revert. Some editors here try not to step on ladies' toes, look above. I am on a voluntary 1RR rule. --

139: 5120: 4593:

in order to try some code which I believe would allow an optional alternative image to be displayed on specific opera pages. For example, if this change were made to

4953:

You may say that there has been no discussion or consensus, but there has been plenty of discussion and editing occurring for operas of several composers, including

2806:

And Smerus, was the "Gerda needn't bother" remark really called for, or was that just snark that failed to assume good faith? (or more bullying of Gerda by Smerus?)

3361:

It's perfectly reasonable to post infoboxes (or most other templates; or thumbnail images) here for discussion. No other project seems to have a problem with this.

2706:! Why suddenly remove it without even asking? And if removing, why not at least consistently? That's what we need to discuss. The removal has no support from me. -- 2703: 2323:, probably via a named parameter should be created. But, since I don't see a consensus developing for the use of this template, perhaps that is a waste of time. -- 1178:

I am not sure if I understood you, so now we have all operas by Méhul, - but need too change all of them to the more precise captions ;) - I need to go for now. --

487:

Sorry, I missed that it was joint work. Then let's wait if everybody agrees (with me) that the infobox is better than the list of his other works we had so far, --

116: 105: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4339: 4335: 2184:

that can be used for sort, compare, calculate, and that can be rendered in different forms, cultures and languages - a service beyond the English Knowledge (XXG)

3994:

also has to be seen in the context of its time. By 1901, Verdi's operas were already starting to go out of fashion. Shaw's point was that even if they did, his

2902:

As an admirer of the outstanding work of both Smerus and Gerda I'd like to say here that I know of no WP colleagues who are more colleaguely when dealing with

3194:

When a bottom navbox for a composer is available, it should be present in all articles to which it navigates. It can be simply one line (collapsing it) as in

2385:

on project opera. It connects the opera to other work by the composer also, is not "duplicate" but broader in scope and in the right position for a navbox. --

5143:

where I don't see conflict. (If you see conflict, simply revert, I am used to it and will not argue.) - I don't get passionate over infoboxes, but people. --

1256:? I thought that the discussion of infoboxes was to be on a case-by case basis. I hope no one is thinking of any argument such as 'As it's been accepted for 3864: 4397:(Viva-Verdi, I've moved your 2 comments here out of the box that appears on the main Project page, but will add an abbreviated version to the box. Best, 2751:

After two more reverts (not by me) and still no added pros for the side navbox in the discussion above, I took this case to a more general discussion at

1263:

Second: the box looks damned ugly and confusing with thne costume pictures squashed next to each other and bits of the accompanying text in the picture.

4153:

I see we are inevitably slinking towards that opera anecdotes article.....And I always thought that infoboxes were the worst that could befall.......--

3646:

Adam, are you sure this was his 'first full-length opera'? German wikipedia calls it an operetta, and mentions a number of his operas, commencing with

4334:

I've used the August CoM and OoM to request some improvements/creations on articles related to Verdi in the run up to his bicentenary in October. See

4249: 2702:

How do we determine that consensus? Verdi is not only relevant to opera. The bottom navbox was an unquestioned good addition for more three months,

3042:? Believe me, I am quite calm. I have a red cat on the bottom of my user, meaning that I don't let arbs, admins nor any other decide what I do, -- 4722:

If you're going to allow the image to be changed, you should offer optional caption and image size parameters. These may be handled identically.

3548: 2168:

It supplies an image that gets close to the specific work, for example the composer at the time when he wrote it or a scene/stage from the opera

918: 3198:. There is no conflict with a side navbox, they can coexist, some readers will use one, some the other, most will hopefully read the article ;) 947:

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

415: 1149:(because then you also have to change in units), better have one improved and then take the others of the unit from there, if you ask me. -- 850: 2582:

I don't mind simultaneous presence of the top and bottom navboxes. although if we must choose one over the other, I prefer the top one. --

2906:

colleagues. (Forgive the prose, but you know what I mean.) Knowledge (XXG) would be the poorer without either. 20:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

3377: 2860: 1892: 1811: 1427: 206:

The examples of 'Píque dame' are fascinating. Discounting those that date from 1910 and 1922, it seems that when the opera was given in

5106:

particularly unpleasant threads in Archive 114 from early August which another editor (quite rightly) archived early, this totals over

3882:, and Shaw per the quote above was obviously a great admirer of it. But I think that's about all you can or should say in the article. 2116: 1481: 590: 47: 17: 1842:

ought to be to ensure that the article is accurate and (at least a little) above basic standards. I won't prentend to be an expert on

879:. It actually mentions one of the functions of infoboxes: Since WP is often mined for data to be supplied elsewhere (e.g. Google's 774:

or yet another "experimental" version is proposed for addition to an article that was about to become Today's Featured Article, e.g.

651:

aware that the second one has yet been formally broached. Gerda 'doesn't think it's a problem' and I congratulate her on her eternal

3861: 523:

refers to the fact that as soon as the discussion started, you went ahead and started adding the infobox to opera articles anyway.

4898:

My personal opinion is that where a footer navbox is available, replacing the header one with the infobox is perfectly acceptable.

1861:

No need to replace the navbox with this infobox, which merely (inadequately) repeats information better covered in the article. --

1657:

last Saturday after the Frederick Ashton Wikimedia editathon in the ROH's ex-crush bar (and quite a bit of wine in the Globe.)) --

261:

I appreciate the infobox, and wonder if some kind of information that a navbox is available for a composer might be part of it, --

3880: 869:

To elaborate on Scarabocchio's points, I believe the infobox is structurally much more significant that most of us realize (it's

228:

is "QUEEN OF SPADES, THE ". So, I thinks it's a bit more than simple usage. I've added the Russian to the example box as well.

5114:

clear that at the moment some editors have fairly entrenched positions and there is simply not sufficient common ground for us

4289:

had no trouble finding another reference. In spite of his/her complaint, I would like to point out that one of our reviewers

1133:

here... adding or attempting to add them to Featured Articles at this early stage, is a bad idea, and in my view, disruptive.

297:, would not know how to add that it was first performed in Swedish, not knowing that title. - I offered Carmen on the talk. -- 4136: 4124: 2547: 1249:

A nmumber of points: but the first one is, what on earth is this discussion doing here? Should it not be on the talk page of

4365:

in as well. I'd like to get that one to FA, largely due to not liking to leave an article I've made much before that state.

3343:

Thank you for the reminder, I typically look only at the top and the bottom of this page. I started my thought on the topic

143: 3916:

work" to him isn't a good idea either. It's better to stick closely to what he actually said which was a lot more nuanced.

3772:, p. 91. He also said that he wanted the "Libera me" from the Requiem played at his own funeral and apparently it was. See 124: 2777:

I have created a new article for this opera. I have already provided it with an infobox, so Gerda needn't bother. Best, --

3542: 2417:

A step backwards: the footer navbox was removed, as "provocative", - no provocation was intended but help, see above, --

1964:(actually because of your comment about consistency, otherwise I would not have touched them), - check your premises, -- 1120:

by that composer. While it's true that this is a period of transition, there are things that can be done to ease this.

4183: 4128: 3874: 1776: 1477: 913: 901:

Just to answer a couple of points here. There is no need to add an extra field for sub-genre. The current guidance is

732: 357: 154: 120: 4605: 4496:

got about 1,000 views. Which from my point of view, made the effort worthwhile. Thanks for the help from GT et al :)

450:(the discussion continued). - I don't know the expression "jump the gun" but only added the infobox to an article of 5119:

few months (if anyone wants to) when people have had time to reflect on their positions and the dust has settled on

5023: 4608:

for the original template compared to the two sandbox test cases, with and without the added parameter "altimage".

4590: 4313: 3906: 3804: 3445: 3313: 3242:

is further up, please add "pros" for a side navbox there, for easy comparison. Do you agree that the bottom navbox

2939: 2674:

ps: "most of Verdi's operas" - any navbox - per definition - should be present in all articles that it links to, --

1008:

Of course the picture of the composer could appear instead, but it is not unique to that opera. Open to discussion.

38: 4691:

I would support the altimage idea, and agree that it would be appropriate for Meyerbeer and others. I concur with

3858: 4505: 3221: 3181: 2363:. Can we have an explanation please? Only one navbox is necessary. Is this an infobox manoeuvre by any chance? -- 2215:

Another pro for infobox: Wikidata will draw information from it. It will not draw information from navboxes. --

2187:

It supplies other key facts in structured form "at a glance" which is for some readers more accessible than prose

1686: 1595: 1575: 1539: 1431: 1319: 1287: 1142: 999: 746: 5095:

I have just finished archiving the threads here from June through the first week in August. You'll find them in

4969:. The end result has so far been the retention of the Composer navbox. The only exception that I am aware of is 3940:

If you really want to add more words to the Requiem article, something on Verdi and religion would be valuable.

1914: 4628: 2279:

As a reader I expect an infobox about *this* opera not a picture of Wagner with a hidden list of other operas.

1550:

Have to admit I hated his Knot Garden, but like his Child of our Time. Should I give Midsummer Marriage a try?

741:. Sometimes, the "other versions" are gone into in much more detail in a separate section in the article, e.g. 3554: 3545: 3344: 1350:

as to why its "sub-genre" was listed as "drame en trois actes, mêlé de chant" in the opening night affiches.

2320: 4275: 4234: 3373: 3246: 3171: 3087: 2856: 2537: 2108: 1888: 1807: 1663: 1423: 447: 356:

My point stands about keeping the box simple and leaving details to the article. See also the discussion at

4612: 4594: 3321: 2819: 2557: 1327: 979: 5166: 5148: 5132: 5072: 5058: 5035: 5027: 5012: 4980: 4940: 4906: 4861: 4838: 4809: 4754: 4679: 4652: 4636: 4574: 4493: 4402: 4384: 4351: 4261: 4206: 4191: 4173: 4144: 4092: 4053: 4039: 4021: 4003: 3945: 3921: 3887: 3835: 3789: 3728: 3610: 3596: 3578: 3527: 3498: 3484: 3466: 3458: 3429: 3414: 3398: 3352: 3333: 3291: 3271: 3257: 3229: 3210: 3142: 3127: 3098: 3047: 2962: 2797: 2760: 2711: 2688:

It should be 'present to all article it links to' - if it is agreed by consensus in the first place.....--

2679: 2665: 2624: 2587: 2572: 2514: 2473: 2422: 2406: 2390: 2343: 2328: 2299: 2251: 2205: 2147: 2127: 2080: 2026: 2012: 2000: 1983: 1969: 1949: 1930: 1918: 1866: 1825: 1784: 1764: 1750: 1635: 1517: 1501: 1355: 1299: 1231: 1217: 1202: 1183: 1169: 1154: 1138: 1101: 1082: 1067: 1043: 1029: 995: 975: 957: 926: 858: 834: 811: 758: 679: 639: 622: 606: 533: 492: 463: 437: 422: 401: 393: 383: 343: 328: 302: 284: 266: 252: 233: 195: 162: 148: 1274:

Therefore: please remove this entire discussion to the article talk page, and record my opinion there as

5170: 5152: 5136: 5103: 5100: 5076: 5062: 5039: 5016: 4984: 4944: 4910: 4865: 4842: 4827: 4813: 4797: 4771: 4758: 4742: 4704: 4683: 4656: 4640: 4578: 4566: 4552: 4537: 4525: 4521: 4510: 4477: 4451: 4406: 4388: 4373: 4355: 4317: 4309: 4303: 4299: 4279: 4265: 4238: 4210: 4195: 4177: 4162: 4148: 4114: 4096: 4057: 4043: 4025: 4007: 3973: 3949: 3925: 3910: 3902: 3891: 3839: 3808: 3800: 3793: 3732: 3689: 3676: 3663: 3640: 3614: 3600: 3582: 3531: 3502: 3488: 3470: 3433: 3418: 3402: 3381: 3356: 3337: 3295: 3275: 3261: 3233: 3214: 3195: 3146: 3131: 3116: 3102: 3073: 3051: 3027: 3012: 3008: 2993: 2966: 2951: 2897: 2881: 2864: 2835: 2812: 2801: 2786: 2764: 2745: 2715: 2697: 2683: 2669: 2653: 2628: 2591: 2576: 2518: 2495: 2477: 2454: 2426: 2410: 2394: 2376: 2347: 2332: 2303: 2288: 2255: 2240: 2224: 2209: 2151: 2131: 2084: 2049: 2030: 2016: 1987: 1973: 1953: 1934: 1922: 1896: 1870: 1855: 1829: 1815: 1788: 1768: 1754: 1722: 1691: 1668: 1639: 1623: 1600: 1580: 1558: 1544: 1505: 1465: 1461: 1393: 1384:

articles themsleves is rather more important and necessary that messing about with ancillary features.--

1378: 1359: 1303: 1235: 1226:

I tentatively got the composers name above the image. If you don't like it, it's easily changed back. --

1221: 1206: 1187: 1173: 1158: 1105: 1093: 1086: 1071: 1047: 1033: 961: 930: 896: 862: 838: 815: 775: 762: 722: 697: 683: 664: 643: 626: 610: 594: 567: 552: 537: 496: 482: 467: 441: 405: 387: 347: 332: 306: 288: 270: 256: 237: 219: 199: 182: 166: 2983:

navbox that is just an infobox with different syntax. As an English speaker, I can only shake my head

2935: 2927: 2112: 293:

I did not say "send" them away, just: "some kind of information that a navbox is available". - I tried

4725:

There's no need to name the parameter "altimage", "image" is fine and consistent with other templates.

3004: 2985:

in dismay and say, "Götterdämmit" (that's a variant on "WTF" to those who are pun-impaired.) (/snark)

2352:

on more than one of the related articles I found a question that I answered on one (for all of these):

883:), the infobox supplies important main points to populate these other uses of WP, particularly as the 4533: 4497: 4447: 2771: 2284: 1678: 1587: 1567: 1531: 737: 710: 563: 5067:

I seem to get involved in fits and spurts. Then I calm down and go back to editing real articles! --

4901:" (8 July), - a view which I share. I had to notify the ArbCom case, where the MoS was mentioned. -- 2486:

Ah, on thne run from Kiev to London I jumped to conclusions. Still, I am sure you are glad, Gerda.--

4120: 3708: 2370: 2178: 1941: 1442: 1347: 1053: 742: 652: 1408: 714: 4271: 4230: 3454: 3364: 2847: 2465: 1879: 1798: 1658: 1496:

go away, whatever we do. I will leave it to someone else to take the lead in future discussions.

1414: 750: 582: 4012:

Please excuse me for noting that a blockquote with italics and quote marks does not conform to

3932: 3767: 1745:, an article that was improved in the process and was viewed more than ever ;) Next: Louise? -- 1611: 5162: 5144: 5128: 5068: 5054: 5031: 5008: 4976: 4936: 4902: 4883: 4857: 4834: 4805: 4766: 4750: 4737: 4692: 4675: 4648: 4632: 4570: 4548: 4473: 4398: 4380: 4368: 4347: 4286: 4257: 4245: 4202: 4187: 4169: 4140: 4110: 4088: 4049: 4035: 4017: 3999: 3941: 3917: 3883: 3831: 3785: 3739: 3724: 3684: 3671: 3635: 3606: 3592: 3574: 3562: 3523: 3494: 3480: 3462: 3425: 3410: 3394: 3348: 3329: 3287: 3267: 3253: 3225: 3206: 3138: 3123: 3111: 3094: 3068: 3043: 2958: 2793: 2756: 2707: 2675: 2661: 2641: 2620: 2583: 2568: 2510: 2469: 2418: 2402: 2386: 2382: 2339: 2324: 2295: 2247: 2220: 2201: 2143: 2123: 2076: 2022: 2008: 1979: 1965: 1945: 1926: 1862: 1821: 1780: 1760: 1746: 1631: 1553: 1497: 1351: 1295: 1227: 1213: 1198: 1179: 1165: 1150: 1134: 1097: 1078: 1063: 1039: 1025: 991: 953: 922: 892: 854: 830: 807: 754: 718: 675: 635: 618: 602: 548: 529: 488: 478: 459: 433: 397: 379: 339: 324: 298: 280: 262: 248: 229: 191: 158: 3347:, links to templates under discussion are on the talk, Sorry that I forgot to change here. -- 1917:, and similar templates on other opera pages that seem to have been changed by one editor to 1278:, on the grounds of it being (to recap) unattractive, repetitive, pointless and misleading.-- 428:

there, because that's how it read. I also think you were wrong to jump the gun and add it to

5050: 4823: 4793: 4785: 4700: 4295: 4253: 4158: 3969: 3659: 2947: 2877: 2831: 2782: 2741: 2733: 2726: 2693: 2649: 2491: 2450: 2045: 1851: 1795:

Much better than the current !Infobox, which is actually a navbox with only one link in it.

1619: 1389: 1374: 1337:

libretto, source of the libretto (when based on another work), and the date of the premiere.

1315: 1283: 693: 660: 378:, when it is not. Can we please have some patience and let this discussion take its course. 215: 178: 4087:

While I'm chasing that one down, has anyone else had anything positive to say about opera?

2841: 1447:"I'd like to know if this is the beginning of a whole series of problems on these articles" 455: 4529: 4443: 3712: 2732:

As at Goetterdaemmerung, I am reverting to the previous template the infobox installed at

2437:

After a series of alarms and diversions, Gerda has kindly agreed to revert the infobox at

2280: 1717: 1456:

Slight rewind... We had the situation here where we were being faced with attempts to add

1058: 880: 586: 559: 2037: 3022: 2988: 2892: 2807: 2442: 2365: 2235: 1843: 1742: 1738: 1250: 983: 846: 294: 190:. A good point about the native title rendering, though! I'll fix that in the example. 4749:

not.) If you have the time, please add your other suggestions to the sandbox. tnx! --

3723:"? The internet seems equally divided. The original quote would be much appreciated. 912:

So I really don't see what the problem is. There was also discussion on this point at

791:

3. adding walls of code which are off-putting to both new and many experienced editors

4849: 4081: 3566: 3450: 2461: 2315: 4102: 794:

4. re-creating the whole article as wall of bullet points that actually obscure the

4544: 4469: 4428: 4132: 4106: 3871:. The sites that specifically attribute it to Shaw are ads on record selling sites 3514: 2216: 2104: 1453:, it probably will mean discussions like that on every page to which it is added. 888: 884: 849:

and are, in my view, some of the most valuable opera pages on Knowledge (XXG). See

544: 520: 474: 451: 3872: 876: 4468:. My initial question is should it be called that, or "Hymn of the Nations"? -- 3083:

see above. I am still waiting for arguments for side navboxes, Did you know that

1449:. Since infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, and given the reaction at 1197:

article, as far as I can see, I think it should be deleted altogether. Sorry.) --

4819: 4789: 4696: 4589:{{Verdi operas/sandbox |altimage=GiuseppeVerdi.jpg |italic title=no}} I created 4154: 3965: 3784:

Thanks for looking! I think you might be right about its apocryphal nature ...

3655: 3519: 2943: 2873: 2827: 2778: 2737: 2689: 2645: 2487: 2446: 2041: 1847: 1615: 1480:

where the box was being developed. Several did. This month the proposed box was

1385: 1370: 1311: 1279: 921:

won't change minds either way, but it's worth reading an alternative viewpoint.

706: 689: 656: 655:

grade optimism. I have a suspicion that others may not agree with her however.--

365: 211: 174: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3877: 3681:

That said, the source I'd trust more calls it an operetta, so using that term.

3605:

I made "her" a redirect to the paragraph in the composer's article, for now, --

2234:

navigate away while still at the top of a long article if you do it this way.

829:

the sub-genre field can be made visible and no extra work needs done. (edited)

4670: 4434: 1710: 1645:

required. The only other Tippett opera that I like (I've seen 'em all except

1565: 1940:

I've reverted the changes for the Méhul operas, since we had a discussion at

446:

I did NOT propose to add the infobox to the Carmen article, just coming from

5003: 4971: 4664: 4362: 4031: 4013: 3625: 2438: 2171:

It is about the article, not leading the reader away as soon as he enters it

1925:. If one can't find consensus for these changes why are they being made? -- 432:(another featured article) when this discussion is less than 24 hours old. 3855: 1038:

I don't understand what you mean about the date format of the premiere. --

4597:, the code added to the page for a particular opera could be as follows: 4464:

When I get back from my trip (after August 11 or so) I'd love to work on

1515:

Apologies for interrupting the infobox debate. I'm delighted to see that

598: 338:"Accident"? Lack of obtaining the rites. - Understand the other, fine. -- 788:

2. skewing or drastically limiting the layout of the rest of the article

4343: 2755:, - interested to find out how to establish consensus in the future. -- 392:

Sorry, Carmen was not started, but a continued discussion. - I started

2313:

The list of Massenet's operas has been added to the infobox operas at

1960:

please note that "one editor" added them BEFORE said discussion about

4966: 4615:

the value of the image parameter would need to be changed from this:

4182:

That's certainly very far from my intention! Thanks for the link to

3867:

even describes the phrase as a "platitude frequently applied" to the

3557:. The title is a pun on the Sicilian folk tale on which it is based, 3320:, which has fixed the problem. It does not affect the actual navbox ( 1260:

opera, we can now put an infobox on any opera without discussion.'?

1011:

If we take the costumes pic, it could be larger. Open to discussion.

875:

just about making a nice article). I was reading The WP article on

3561:(misfortune). More about the folk tale (originally written down by 5110:(the length of my Master's thesis!) in the last two months alone. 4962: 4958: 4954: 3079:

To my knowledge, we are updating navboxes as footer navboxes. For

2792:

i agree, this seems to be an appropriate use for Infobox opera. --

4520:

Looks like y'all have got two articles on the same opera singer:

4931:. If you wish to change the current guidelines, fine, but do it 4627:

Similar changes could be made to other composer navboxes, e.g.,

2840:

You'd be advised to strike that allegation pretty sharpish, per

3901:", not merely "work". I still think it should be mentioned. -- 2612:

Flexible organisation, because there is more space horizontally

129:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Opera/Horizontal composer templates

4543:

The Library of Congress prefers the Solovianenko spelling. --

2460:

Respected Smerus, your perception and reality are two things.

25: 1737:

Today's birthday child, Charpentier, is famous for an opera,

2464:

reverted, the discussion is open again. As I pointed out on

1610:

Hurrah, let's get back to music! For interest btw here is a

558:

be used to expand them to include lots more data in future.

4624:|image={{#if:{{{altimage|}}} | {{{altimage}}} |Verdi.jpg}} 4048:

I was probably having a bad day when I added that... :-} --

1052:

I think it's worth discussing this example here instead of

4528:. Could a project member please take care of the merge? — 3177:

for example. I would have had no reasonable way to create

1330:

which has been there practically since the project began:

4131:

has the full list of quotes currently on rotation at the

2615:

Site consistency: it's the standard position for navboxes

1019:

composers have them, where "two templates" is no problem.

4442:

s composition history). Any help would be appreciated.

3591:

is a good pun ;) - thanks for providing the material! --

1709:

felt a little knotty to me, musically and dramatically.

1526:

at ROH last night made me apprecaite anew how wonderful

4928: 4924: 4897: 4887: 4561: 3284: 3282: 3164: 2564: 2361: 2272: 2072: 771: 4890:, in Voceditenore's absence and without a discussion. 4270:

That is true. AfC could always use more opera lovers!

770:

boxes were added to articles on a one-off basis, e.g.

396:, please check, and I had no intentions to do more, -- 247:

it should be used for every opera by that composer. --

187:

Observe the use of Pique Dame as the title in English

4662:

the lead, like the infoboxes that have been added to

4244:

I accepted the article and tidied it up. It's now at

4034:

or blockquotes with italics and quote marks?. Best,

2381:The navbox was created in response to a concern by 2360:A duplicate navbox has been placed in this article 2196:

Wikidata will draw information from it. (see below)

1192:The way it is now is too confusing, with the title 115:Following discussions here last March {archived in 5030:on each single talk page. It's fun for a while. -- 4075: 3962:Or perhaps start another article, opera anecdotes. 1978:Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I misspoke. -- 1077:find and insert it (roughly Chapters 39 to 47). -- 1005:Thanks for asking questions instead of reverting! 798:information rather than making it more accessible. 134:My recommendation would be to add this infobox as 5049:first.) In the light of the arbcom case, I chose 802:varying degrees) or at least not opposed to one, 745:. Sometimes they get two separate articles, e.g. 4919:I have reverted that change, for which there is 3424:I moved Louise, but will not touch the other, -- 1614:of Tippett by Norman Lebrecht (from 2004).....-- 4426:As of 31 July, I am up to and still working on 4123:was very positive, but then he would be.:) See 4585:Alternative images for opera composer navboxes 3266:It adds very little, but I won't remove it. -- 3220:I also found the bottom navbox for Prokoviev ( 2443:carry out a discussion on her infobox proposal 2309:List of opera links in Template:Infobox operas 528:see no reason why you cannot wait a few days. 4294:likely to post anything here in the future. — 2338:no more, Massenet has now a footer navbox, -- 364:, I added a clarification to your comment on 8: 4600:{{Verdi operas|altimage=GiuseppeVerdi.jpg}} 4250:Knowledge (XXG):Music encyclopedia topics/10 3964:I hastily withdraw the last sentence. :-} -- 3239: 3080: 4730:|image={{{image|{{{altimage|Verdi.jpg}}}}}} 3252:should be in the articles on his operas? -- 1996:(edit conflict, reply for the first entry) 1923:Pages that link to "Template:Infobox opera" 4927:, and even more to the point, my comments 4882:The option of infobox opera, installed by 4080:My own favourite (positive) quote is from 3522:, substantial paragraph in her article, -- 458:members are committed to accessibility. -- 4728:If you want to allow either, you can use 4432:(although have recently done work on the 4308:Derogatory? Voceditenore? Where? How? -- 3587:One look at the first review proved that 3553:. Details of score, roles, synopsis etc. 2938:. I have reverted it, with my reasons at 974:It seems to me that the substitution of 591:Musicals and operas of Leonard Bernstein 5161:I don't want to cause woes and left. -- 4330:August Composer and Operas of the Month 2820:Knowledge (XXG):Harassment#Wikihounding 2553:. Others prefer the "old" side navbox: 2273:comment from the reader's point of view 743:Lucia di Lammermoor#Lucie de Lammermoor 589:, which by consensus use footer boxes ( 1564:middle act. Here they are on Youtube: 1024:Again, thank you for your feedback, -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Opera 3038:Peter, what would opera be without a 2174:It supplies a date in templated form 473:it out please (exiting discussion).-- 414:, shortly before it was to appear as 125:Operas by Composers vertical navboxes 119:), this is been under development at 7: 3746:opera". Shaw did say this about the 3457:, - stage director of the premiere, 3093:vanished from most of his operas? -- 851:Category:Lists of operas by composer 410:Yes, you had proposed an infobox on 5121:the current arbitration proceedings 4346:(Hooray!). Best wishes to you all. 3934:Viva la Libertà!: Politics in Opera 3769:Viva la Libertà!: Politics in Opera 2468:, I am used to being reverted ;) -- 2099:In my view, the implication of the 1705:a try—Tippet at his best, I think. 782:use which has minimum capacity for: 3286:, and I don't want an edit war. -- 24: 4886:in the Manual of Style, was just 3876:and comments on customer reviews 3159:Duplication of information wanted 1492:this issue, which trust me, will 785:1. misleading or over-simplifying 595:Works for the stage by Kurt Weill 4878:Change of MoS without discussion 4715:Which I would highly recommend. 4712:|image={{{altimage|Verdi.jpg}}} 2597:Let's start pros for both then: 224:Actually, its entry in the 2006 29: 4606:Template:Verdi operas/testcases 4438:article and, some time ago, on 4186:which I had missed completely. 3003:be failing to reign them in.)-- 4709:You can simplify the code to: 4137:Portal:Opera/Selected quote/17 2111:, etc. (There are more listed 1653:. (Oh, and I greatly enjoyed 705:I'll second the wise words of 1: 5171:11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) 4591:Template:Verdi operas/sandbox 4030:Um, which is your pet peeve? 3314:Template:Verdi operas/sandbox 3205:Can we take it from there? -- 2565:reverting with an explanation 4340:August Composer of the Month 3854:it to Shaw (or anyone else) 3742:had attacked it as "Verdi's 2940:Talk:Götterdämmerung#Infobox 2567:, but there are too many. -- 5153:11:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 5137:11:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 5077:09:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 5063:06:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC) 5040:18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 5017:17:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 4985:23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 4945:17:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 4911:09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 4866:10:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 4843:09:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 4828:17:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 4814:17:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 4798:15:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC) 4579:16:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC) 4553:23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 4538:19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC) 4511:10:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC) 4361:If you feel like it, throw 4225:You might be interested in 4184:Portal:Opera/Selected quote 4129:Portal:Opera/Selected quote 4016:. (One of my pet peeves) -- 3163:Today, I have been termed " 3060:Opera navboxes and pictures 2606:Possibly open (uncollapsed) 1478:Template talk:Infobox opera 1443:Talk:Joseph (opera)#Infobox 914:Template talk:Infobox opera 733:Template talk:Infobox opera 358:Template talk:Infobox opera 155:Template talk:Infobox opera 121:Template talk:Infobox opera 5189: 4478:04:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 4407:04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 4389:04:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 4336:August Operas of the Month 3654:of 1837 and 1841. Best, -- 3052:17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 3028:17:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 3013:15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC) 2994:17:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 2967:17:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 2952:16:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 2898:18:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 2882:17:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 2865:13:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 2836:10:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC) 2813:17:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 2802:22:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC) 2787:22:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC) 2765:09:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 2746:19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) 1915:Template:Monteverdi operas 369:not to provide this as an 106:Archives Table of Contents 4772:00:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 4759:19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 4743:15:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 4629:Template:Meyerbeer operas 4452:19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 4374:19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 4356:18:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 4318:13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 4304:12:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 4280:15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4266:07:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4239:00:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4211:11:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4196:10:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4178:10:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4163:09:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4149:09:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 4115:21:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 4097:21:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 4058:06:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 4044:04:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 4026:19:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 4008:14:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 3974:13:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 3950:12:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 3926:04:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 3911:01:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 3892:15:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3840:14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3809:13:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3794:12:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3733:08:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3690:06:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 3677:06:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 3664:05:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 3641:03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC) 3615:10:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 3601:22:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3583:17:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3532:14:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3503:17:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3489:17:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3471:11:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 3434:07:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3419:11:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3403:06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3382:11:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3357:06:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3338:06:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 3296:23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3276:19:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3262:10:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3234:09:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 3222:Template:Sergei Prokofiev 3215:09:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 3147:12:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 3132:06:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 3117:20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 3103:19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 3074:16:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 2519:18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2496:17:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2478:13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 2455:13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 2304:10:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC) 2289:06:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC) 2271:navbox is available. One 2256:10:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC) 2193:It can be more attractive 1897:21:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1871:21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1856:19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1830:16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1816:14:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1789:06:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 1769:13:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1755:13:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1723:11:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 1692:12:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 1669:16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1640:11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1624:10:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1601:10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1581:10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1559:10:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1545:09:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 1506:07:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 1432:15:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC) 1394:21:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1379:19:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1360:17:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1320:09:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1304:09:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1288:09:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1236:22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1222:21:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1207:18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1188:16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1174:15:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1159:15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1143:15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1106:15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1087:14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1072:14:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1048:10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1034:09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 1000:09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 962:06:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 931:06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC) 897:22:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 863:06:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC) 839:21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 816:10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 763:10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 568:22:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC) 4705:06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 4684:22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4657:22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 4641:22:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC) 2753:Arb case/The Ban on Love 2716:10:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2698:10:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2684:09:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2670:09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2654:09:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2629:08:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2592:08:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2577:08:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2427:14:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2411:13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2395:12:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2377:12:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2348:12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2333:09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2241:16:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC) 2225:19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2210:11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2152:16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2132:12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2085:11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2050:09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2031:09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 2017:09:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1988:15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1974:11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1954:09:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1935:08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC) 1612:very intemperate putdown 723:02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 698:19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 684:18:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 665:17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 644:16:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 627:11:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 611:11:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 553:16:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 538:10:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 497:10:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 483:10:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 468:09:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 442:08:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 406:07:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 388:07:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 348:07:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 333:07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 307:06:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 289:06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 271:19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 257:18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 238:06:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 220:20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 200:18:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 183:18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 167:11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 5028:humbly asking like Bach 4921:no consensus whatsoever 4488:Increases in page views 4168:Aaack! I hope not. :-) 4074:On the subject of opera 3719:" or "Verdi's greatest 3240:infobox vs. side navbox 3081:Infobox vs. side navbox 2321:Template:Infobox operas 2160:Infobox vs. side navbox 2109:Der Kaiser von Atlantis 1441:An editor has asked at 1346:etc. See my comment at 131:for the current list. 5127:I live in hope. Best, 4695:on top/bottom boxes.-- 4494:The Midsummer Marriage 3990:Shaw's comment on the 3865:This newspaper article 3459:Friedrich Meyer-Oertel 3455:play of the same title 2294:Open to discussion, -- 1919:Template:Infobox opera 1905:Template:Infobox opera 1703:The Midsummer Marriage 1528:The Midsummer Marriage 1518:The Midsummer Marriage 1464:and multiple sections 976:Template:Infobox opera 966: 747:Les vêpres siciliennes 394:Nixon in China (opera) 157:(not pasted in here). 149:Template:Infobox opera 5024:pleading like Abraham 4613:Template:Verdi operas 4595:Template:Verdi operas 4567:Anatoliy Solovianenko 4562:Anatoliy Solovyanenko 4526:Anatoliy Solovyanenko 4522:Anatoliy Solovianenko 4516:Anatoliy Solovyanenko 3715:as "Verdi's greatest 3388:Infobox on talk page? 3322:Template:Verdi operas 3238:The discussion about 3196:The Company of Heaven 3165:tremendous encourager 2609:Covering many aspects 2548:Johann Sebastian Bach 2190:It is site-consistent 980:Template:Méhul operas 42:of past discussions. 3648:Virginia delle valle 2979:Smerus puts in that 1942:Talk: Joseph (opera) 1913:the restoration the 1759:awaiting feedback -- 967:Infobox for Méhul's 688:bene, a rivederla!-- 454:I know well enough. 226:Grove Book of Operas 111:Opera Infobox update 4121:Oscar Hammerstein I 4105:may be of some use. 3709:George Bernard Shaw 3493:You're welcome. ;) 3439:Opera red links III 2934:post an infobox on 1701:Yes, Adam, do give 1482:put to a discussion 1348:Talk:Joseph (opera) 1054:Talk:Joseph (opera) 653:Fotherington-Thomas 4559:Done. I've merged 4466:Inno delle Nazioni 3963: 3446:Die Hamletmaschine 3187:as a side navbox. 2871: 2164:Pros for infobox: 751:I vespri Siciliani 583:Candide (operetta) 576:Consistency issues 448:The Rite of Spring 108: 4618:|image=Verdi.jpg 4246:Der Waffenschmied 3961: 2869: 2822:. And, yes, this 104: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5180: 5051:Das Liebesverbot 4900: 4786:Robert le diable 4770: 4741: 4731: 4604:displayed. See 4564: 4508: 4501: 4372: 4310:Michael Bednarek 4254:The opera corpus 3903:Michael Bednarek 3801:Michael Bednarek 3702:Messa da Requiem 3688: 3675: 3639: 3461:, is for DYK, -- 3380: 3371: 3367: 3318:|italic title=no 3251: 3245: 3186: 3182:Benjamin Britten 3180: 3176: 3170: 3115: 3092: 3086: 3072: 3025: 2991: 2895: 2863: 2854: 2850: 2810: 2734:Das Liebesverbot 2727:Das Liebesverbot 2562: 2556: 2552: 2546: 2543:, comparable to 2542: 2536: 2373: 2368: 2356:Duplicate navbox 2238: 2183: 2177: 2005: 1999: 1895: 1886: 1882: 1814: 1805: 1801: 1720: 1715: 1689: 1682: 1598: 1591: 1578: 1571: 1557: 1542: 1535: 1430: 1421: 1417: 827:tragédie lyrique 427: 421: 144:Template section 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5188: 5187: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5116:as a collective 5093: 4999:status quo ante 4896: 4880: 4782: 4764: 4735: 4729: 4713: 4625: 4619: 4601: 4587: 4560: 4518: 4506: 4499: 4490: 4366: 4332: 4256:. Geesh! Best, 4227:this submission 4223: 4127:for his quote. 4072: 3705: 3682: 3669: 3633: 3629: 3441: 3390: 3369: 3363: 3362: 3310: 3249: 3243: 3184: 3178: 3174: 3168: 3161: 3109: 3090: 3084: 3066: 3062: 3023: 2989: 2936:Götterdämmerung 2931: 2928:Götterdämmerung 2893: 2852: 2846: 2845: 2808: 2775: 2772:Vedontakal Vrop 2730: 2603: 2560: 2554: 2550: 2544: 2540: 2534: 2531: 2529:Composer navbox 2435: 2371: 2366: 2311: 2268: 2266:Infobox July 19 2236: 2181: 2175: 2162: 2073:of another user 2003: 1997: 1907: 1884: 1878: 1877: 1838:infoboxes, the 1803: 1797: 1796: 1735: 1718: 1711: 1707:The Knot Garden 1687: 1680: 1596: 1589: 1576: 1569: 1551: 1540: 1533: 1513: 1439: 1419: 1413: 1412: 1059:Book of Genesis 982:in the article 972: 945: 881:Knowledge Graph 877:Knowledge (XXG) 587:Der Protagonist 578: 521:Jumping the gun 425: 419: 113: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5186: 5184: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5156: 5155: 5092: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 4948: 4947: 4914: 4913: 4879: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4781: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4733: 4732: 4726: 4723: 4711: 4689: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4623: 4617: 4599: 4586: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4556: 4555: 4517: 4514: 4489: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4331: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4222: 4221:AfC submission 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4118: 4117: 4071: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 3998:would endure. 3988: 3987: 3986: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3938: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3777: 3776: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3752: 3751: 3740:Hans von Bülow 3704: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3628: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3603: 3565:and retold by 3563:Giuseppe Pitrè 3535: 3534: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3474: 3473: 3440: 3437: 3422: 3421: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3359: 3309: 3308:Template demos 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3247:Giuseppe Verdi 3203: 3202: 3199: 3172:Richard Wagner 3160: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3088:Giuseppe Verdi 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3016: 3015: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2970: 2969: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2729: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2704:discussed here 2672: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2602: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2538:Giuseppe Verdi 2530: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2481: 2480: 2434: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2358: 2353: 2310: 2307: 2292: 2291: 2267: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2228: 2227: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2188: 2185: 2172: 2169: 2161: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2136: 2135: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1906: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1743:Joseph (opera) 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1512: 1509: 1438: 1435: 1411:would assist. 1409:a bot operator 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1307: 1306: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1224: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1009: 971: 965: 944: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 910: 909: 908: 867: 866: 865: 799: 792: 789: 786: 783: 767: 766: 765: 703: 702: 701: 700: 686: 668: 667: 647: 646: 630: 629: 577: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 525:Nixon in China 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 430:Nixon in China 351: 350: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 112: 109: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5185: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5154: 5150: 5146: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5134: 5130: 5125: 5122: 5117: 5111: 5109: 5105: 5102: 5098: 5090: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5065: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5047: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5001:, apart from 5000: 4995: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4974: 4973: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4899: 4893: 4892: 4891: 4889: 4885: 4877: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4779: 4773: 4769: 4768: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4740: 4739: 4727: 4724: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4716: 4710: 4707: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4672: 4667: 4666: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4622: 4616: 4614: 4609: 4607: 4598: 4596: 4592: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4563: 4558: 4557: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4515: 4513: 4512: 4509: 4503: 4502: 4495: 4487: 4479: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4431: 4430: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4371: 4370: 4364: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4329: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4292: 4288: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4272:FoCuSandLeArN 4269: 4268: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4231:FoCuSandLeArN 4228: 4220: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4083: 4082:Kasper Holten 4078: 4076: 4069: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3971: 3967: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3878: 3875: 3873: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3859: 3856: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3765: 3764: 3759: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3711:describe the 3710: 3703: 3699: 3691: 3687: 3686: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3637: 3627: 3624: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3567:Italo Calvino 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479:thank you, -- 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3451:Wolfgang Rihm 3448: 3447: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3436: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3370:Pigsonthewing 3366: 3360: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3307: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3248: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190:My approach: 3188: 3183: 3173: 3166: 3158: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3089: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3059: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040:little dramah 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3026: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3001: 3000: 2995: 2992: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2929: 2926: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2896: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2879: 2875: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2853:Pigsonthewing 2849: 2843: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2728: 2725: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2598: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2559: 2549: 2539: 2528: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2369: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2316:La Navarraise 2308: 2306: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2274: 2265: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2180: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2159: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2118: 2117:Infobox redux 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2002: 2001:Infobox opera 1995: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885:Pigsonthewing 1881: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804:Pigsonthewing 1800: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1777:Infobox moved 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1732: 1724: 1721: 1716: 1714: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1690: 1684: 1683: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1592: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1579: 1573: 1572: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1537: 1536: 1529: 1525: 1520: 1519: 1510: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1489: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1469: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1454: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1437:Infobox redux 1436: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420:Pigsonthewing 1416: 1410: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1344: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1259: 1255: 1253: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1130: 1127: 1121: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1060: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1017: 1013: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 997: 993: 988: 986: 981: 977: 970: 964: 963: 959: 955: 950: 942: 932: 928: 924: 920: 915: 911: 907: 903: 902: 900: 899: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 805: 800: 797: 793: 790: 787: 784: 781: 777: 773: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 739: 734: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 720: 716: 712: 708: 699: 695: 691: 687: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 669: 666: 662: 658: 654: 649: 648: 645: 641: 637: 632: 631: 628: 624: 620: 615: 614: 613: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 575: 569: 565: 561: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 526: 522: 518: 498: 494: 490: 486: 485: 484: 480: 476: 471: 470: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 444: 443: 439: 435: 431: 424: 423:Infobox opera 417: 413: 409: 408: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 385: 381: 377: 376:fait accompli 372: 367: 363: 359: 355: 354: 353: 352: 349: 345: 341: 337: 336: 335: 334: 330: 326: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 273: 272: 268: 264: 260: 259: 258: 254: 250: 245: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 222: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 204: 203: 202: 201: 197: 193: 189: 186: 185: 184: 180: 176: 171: 170: 169: 168: 164: 160: 156: 151: 150: 145: 141: 140:Article Guide 137: 132: 130: 126: 122: 118: 110: 107: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5163:Gerda Arendt 5145:Gerda Arendt 5129:Voceditenore 5126: 5115: 5112: 5108:17,000 words 5107: 5096: 5094: 5091:17,000 words 5069:Robert.Allen 5055:Gerda Arendt 5032:Gerda Arendt 5009:Voceditenore 5002: 4998: 4993: 4977:Robert.Allen 4970: 4937:Voceditenore 4932: 4920: 4903:Gerda Arendt 4884:Voceditenore 4881: 4858:Gerda Arendt 4835:Robert.Allen 4806:Voceditenore 4783: 4767:Adam Cuerden 4765: 4751:Robert.Allen 4738:Adam Cuerden 4736: 4734: 4717: 4714: 4708: 4693:Robert.Allen 4690: 4676:Robert.Allen 4669: 4663: 4649:Gerda Arendt 4633:Robert.Allen 4626: 4620: 4610: 4602: 4588: 4571:Voceditenore 4519: 4498: 4491: 4465: 4439: 4433: 4429:Il trovatore 4427: 4399:Voceditenore 4396: 4395: 4381:Voceditenore 4369:Adam Cuerden 4367: 4348:Voceditenore 4344:Campari Soda 4333: 4290: 4287:Voceditenore 4258:Voceditenore 4224: 4203:Voceditenore 4188:Scarabocchio 4170:Voceditenore 4152: 4141:Voceditenore 4133:Opera Portal 4119: 4089:Scarabocchio 4086: 4079: 4073: 4070:Opera Quotes 4050:Robert.Allen 4036:Voceditenore 4018:Robert.Allen 4000:Voceditenore 3995: 3991: 3983: 3958: 3942:Scarabocchio 3933: 3918:Voceditenore 3898: 3884:Voceditenore 3868: 3852: 3832:Scarabocchio 3786:Scarabocchio 3768: 3757: 3747: 3743: 3725:Scarabocchio 3720: 3716: 3706: 3701: 3685:Adam Cuerden 3683: 3672:Adam Cuerden 3670: 3651: 3647: 3636:Adam Cuerden 3634: 3630: 3607:Gerda Arendt 3593:Gerda Arendt 3589:Miss Fortune 3588: 3575:Voceditenore 3558: 3524:Gerda Arendt 3515:Miss Fortune 3513: 3495:Voceditenore 3481:Gerda Arendt 3463:Gerda Arendt 3453:, after the 3444: 3426:Gerda Arendt 3423: 3411:Voceditenore 3395:Gerda Arendt 3391: 3378:Andy's edits 3374:Talk to Andy 3365:Andy Mabbett 3349:Gerda Arendt 3330:Voceditenore 3325: 3317: 3311: 3288:Gerda Arendt 3268:Robert.Allen 3254:Gerda Arendt 3226:Robert.Allen 3207:Gerda Arendt 3204: 3189: 3162: 3139:Gerda Arendt 3124:Gerda Arendt 3112:Adam Cuerden 3110: 3095:Gerda Arendt 3069:Adam Cuerden 3067: 3063: 3044:Gerda Arendt 2984: 2980: 2976: 2959:Gerda Arendt 2932: 2903: 2861:Andy's edits 2857:Talk to Andy 2848:Andy Mabbett 2826:a warning.-- 2823: 2794:Robert.Allen 2776: 2757:Gerda Arendt 2731: 2708:Gerda Arendt 2676:Gerda Arendt 2662:Gerda Arendt 2642:Robert.Allen 2635: 2634: 2632: 2621:Gerda Arendt 2618: 2596: 2584:Robert.Allen 2569:Gerda Arendt 2558:Verdi operas 2532: 2511:Gerda Arendt 2470:Gerda Arendt 2441:in order to 2436: 2419:Gerda Arendt 2403:Gerda Arendt 2387:Gerda Arendt 2383:Robert.Allen 2364: 2355: 2340:Gerda Arendt 2325:Robert.Allen 2314: 2312: 2296:Gerda Arendt 2293: 2269: 2248:Gerda Arendt 2202:Gerda Arendt 2199: 2163: 2144:Robert.Allen 2124:Voceditenore 2120: 2105:Bluthochzeit 2100: 2077:Gerda Arendt 2023:Robert.Allen 2009:Gerda Arendt 1980:Robert.Allen 1966:Gerda Arendt 1961: 1946:Robert.Allen 1927:Robert.Allen 1910: 1908: 1893:Andy's edits 1889:Talk to Andy 1880:Andy Mabbett 1863:Robert.Allen 1839: 1836: 1822:Gerda Arendt 1812:Andy's edits 1808:Talk to Andy 1799:Andy Mabbett 1781:Gerda Arendt 1761:Gerda Arendt 1758: 1747:Gerda Arendt 1736: 1712: 1706: 1702: 1679: 1675: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1632:Voceditenore 1609: 1588: 1568: 1554:Adam Cuerden 1552: 1532: 1527: 1523: 1516: 1514: 1498:Voceditenore 1493: 1490: 1485: 1473: 1470: 1457: 1455: 1450: 1446: 1440: 1428:Andy's edits 1424:Talk to Andy 1415:Andy Mabbett 1406: 1352:Voceditenore 1335: 1308: 1296:Robert.Allen 1275: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1257: 1251: 1248: 1228:Gerda Arendt 1214:Gerda Arendt 1199:Robert.Allen 1193: 1180:Gerda Arendt 1166:Voceditenore 1151:Gerda Arendt 1135:Voceditenore 1131: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1098:Voceditenore 1079:Gerda Arendt 1064:Voceditenore 1040:Robert.Allen 1026:Gerda Arendt 992:Robert.Allen 984: 973: 968: 954:Voceditenore 948: 946: 923:Voceditenore 904: 885:semantic web 871: 870: 855:Voceditenore 831:Scarabocchio 826: 823:opera bouffe 822: 808:Voceditenore 803: 795: 779: 755:Voceditenore 738:William Tell 736: 711:William Tell 704: 676:Voceditenore 636:Voceditenore 619:Gerda Arendt 603:Voceditenore 579: 530:Voceditenore 524: 516: 513: 489:Gerda Arendt 460:Gerda Arendt 434:Voceditenore 429: 411: 398:Gerda Arendt 380:Voceditenore 375: 370: 361: 340:Gerda Arendt 325:Voceditenore 321: 299:Gerda Arendt 281:Voceditenore 276: 263:Gerda Arendt 249:Robert.Allen 230:Voceditenore 225: 207: 192:Voceditenore 159:Voceditenore 147: 135: 133: 114: 78: 43: 37: 5097:Archive 115 4718:Few notes: 4417:particular. 4296:Anne Delong 4229:. Regards, 3520:Judith Weir 3005:Peter cohen 2904:colleaguely 2275:was today: 1733:Charpentier 599:willy nilly 366:Talk:Carmen 142:and in the 117:Archive 113 98:Archive 120 90:Archive 117 85:Archive 116 79:Archive 115 73:Archive 114 68:Archive 113 60:Archive 110 36:This is an 4671:Don Carlos 4530:Psychonaut 4444:Viva-Verdi 4435:Don Carlos 3316:and added 2872:. ~Love,-- 2281:Agathoclea 2179:start date 1651:King Priam 1647:Robin Hood 1488:for now. 919:this essay 560:Cg2p0B0u8m 5004:Fatinitza 4972:Fatinitza 4780:A try out 4665:Rigoletto 4621:to this: 4379:editors. 4363:Fatinitza 4103:This page 4032:MOS:QUOTE 4014:MOS:QUOTE 3626:Fatinitza 3024:Montanabw 2990:Montanabw 2977:of course 2894:Montanabw 2809:Montanabw 2439:Rigoletto 2433:Rigoletto 2237:Montanabw 1660:Guillaume 1271:infobox. 847:Kleinzach 452:an author 4994:anything 4933:properly 4854:Evidence 4850:Quiddity 4507:instinct 4139:. Best, 3559:Sfortuna 2981:godawful 2870:Censored 2466:his talk 2462:Eusebeus 1840:priority 1688:instinct 1655:Gloriana 1597:instinct 1577:instinct 1541:instinct 1524:Gloriana 780:optional 772:Motezuma 4888:changed 4545:kosboot 4470:kosboot 4107:4meter4 3996:Requiem 3992:Requiem 3869:Requiem 3775:. Best, 3748:Requiem 3713:Requiem 3652:Gertrud 2217:kosboot 1911:support 1719:(talk) 1511:Tippett 1254:(opera) 987:(opera) 889:kosboot 715:Drhoehl 545:Wehwalt 475:Wehwalt 208:Russian 138:in the 39:archive 4967:Wagner 4965:, and 4852:, see 4820:Smerus 4790:Smerus 4697:Smerus 4500:almost 4440:Ballo' 4155:Smerus 3966:Smerus 3744:latest 3700:Verdi 3656:Smerus 2944:Smerus 2874:Smerus 2842:WP:NLT 2828:Smerus 2779:Smerus 2738:Smerus 2690:Smerus 2646:Smerus 2601:Bottom 2488:Smerus 2447:Smerus 2101:option 2042:Smerus 1962:Joseph 1921:. See 1848:Smerus 1844:Louise 1739:Louise 1681:almost 1616:Smerus 1590:almost 1570:almost 1534:almost 1486:option 1474:option 1458:ad hoc 1451:Joseph 1386:Smerus 1371:Smerus 1312:Smerus 1280:Smerus 1276:Delete 1252:Joseph 1194:Joseph 1094:Joseph 985:Joseph 969:Joseph 949:option 943:Update 776:Carmen 707:Smerus 690:Smerus 657:Smerus 517:option 456:WP:QAI 412:Carmen 371:option 362:Carmen 295:Lolita 212:Smerus 175:Smerus 136:option 5101:these 4963:Verdi 4959:Bizet 4955:Mehul 4565:into 3899:opera 3717:opera 2636:don't 2367:Klein 2038:WP:OR 1649:) is 1015:so ;) 906:text. 825:or a 360:. Re 16:< 5167:talk 5149:talk 5133:talk 5073:talk 5059:talk 5036:talk 5013:talk 4981:talk 4941:talk 4929:here 4925:here 4907:talk 4862:talk 4839:talk 4824:talk 4810:talk 4794:talk 4784:See 4755:talk 4701:talk 4680:talk 4674:. -- 4668:and 4653:talk 4637:talk 4575:talk 4549:talk 4534:talk 4524:and 4474:talk 4448:talk 4403:talk 4385:talk 4352:talk 4338:and 4314:talk 4300:talk 4276:talk 4262:talk 4252:and 4235:talk 4207:talk 4192:talk 4174:talk 4159:talk 4145:talk 4125:here 4111:talk 4093:talk 4054:talk 4040:talk 4022:talk 4004:talk 3970:talk 3946:talk 3922:talk 3907:talk 3888:talk 3836:talk 3805:talk 3790:talk 3766:See 3729:talk 3721:work 3707:Did 3660:talk 3650:and 3611:talk 3597:talk 3579:talk 3571:here 3555:here 3528:talk 3518:by 3499:talk 3485:talk 3467:talk 3430:talk 3415:talk 3399:talk 3353:talk 3345:here 3334:talk 3326:link 3292:talk 3272:talk 3258:talk 3230:talk 3211:talk 3143:talk 3128:talk 3099:talk 3048:talk 3009:talk 2975:And 2963:talk 2948:talk 2878:talk 2832:talk 2798:talk 2783:talk 2761:talk 2742:talk 2712:talk 2694:talk 2680:talk 2666:talk 2650:talk 2625:talk 2588:talk 2573:talk 2515:talk 2492:talk 2474:talk 2451:talk 2423:talk 2407:talk 2391:talk 2372:zach 2344:talk 2329:talk 2300:talk 2285:talk 2252:talk 2221:talk 2206:talk 2148:talk 2128:talk 2113:here 2081:talk 2075:. -- 2046:talk 2027:talk 2013:talk 1984:talk 1970:talk 1950:talk 1931:talk 1867:talk 1852:talk 1826:talk 1785:talk 1779:, -- 1765:talk 1751:talk 1713:Tony 1665:Tell 1636:talk 1620:talk 1502:talk 1468:.) 1466:here 1462:here 1390:talk 1375:talk 1356:talk 1328:here 1316:talk 1300:talk 1284:talk 1258:this 1232:talk 1218:talk 1203:talk 1184:talk 1170:talk 1155:talk 1139:talk 1102:talk 1083:talk 1068:talk 1044:talk 1030:talk 996:talk 978:for 958:talk 927:talk 893:talk 859:talk 853:. – 835:talk 812:talk 759:talk 749:and 719:talk 694:talk 680:talk 661:talk 640:talk 623:talk 607:talk 593:and 585:and 564:talk 549:talk 534:talk 493:talk 479:talk 464:talk 438:talk 402:talk 384:talk 344:talk 329:talk 303:talk 285:talk 277:very 267:talk 253:talk 234:talk 216:talk 196:talk 179:talk 163:talk 5104:two 5026:or 4611:In 4291:did 3449:by 3372:); 2987:. 2942:.-- 2855:); 2445:.-- 1887:); 1806:); 1530:is 1494:not 1422:); 1126:not 1096:". 872:not 796:key 416:TFA 5169:) 5151:) 5135:) 5075:) 5061:) 5038:) 5015:) 4983:) 4961:, 4957:, 4943:) 4909:) 4864:) 4841:) 4826:) 4812:) 4796:) 4757:) 4703:) 4682:) 4655:) 4647:-- 4639:) 4577:) 4551:) 4536:) 4476:) 4450:) 4405:) 4387:) 4354:) 4316:) 4302:) 4278:) 4264:) 4237:) 4209:) 4194:) 4176:) 4161:) 4147:) 4113:) 4095:) 4056:) 4042:) 4024:) 4006:) 3972:) 3948:) 3924:) 3909:) 3890:) 3863:. 3860:, 3857:, 3838:) 3807:) 3792:) 3731:) 3662:) 3613:) 3599:) 3581:) 3573:– 3569:) 3550:, 3547:, 3544:, 3530:) 3501:) 3487:) 3469:) 3432:) 3417:) 3401:) 3393:-- 3376:; 3355:) 3336:) 3294:) 3274:) 3260:) 3250:}} 3244:{{ 3232:) 3213:) 3185:}} 3179:{{ 3175:}} 3169:{{ 3145:) 3137:-- 3130:) 3122:-- 3101:) 3091:}} 3085:{{ 3050:) 3011:) 2965:) 2950:) 2880:) 2859:; 2844:. 2834:) 2824:is 2800:) 2785:) 2763:) 2744:) 2714:) 2696:) 2682:) 2668:) 2652:) 2627:) 2619:-- 2590:) 2575:) 2561:}} 2555:{{ 2551:}} 2545:{{ 2541:}} 2535:{{ 2517:) 2509:-- 2494:) 2476:) 2453:) 2425:) 2409:) 2401:-- 2393:) 2346:) 2331:) 2302:) 2287:) 2254:) 2223:) 2208:) 2182:}} 2176:{{ 2150:) 2130:) 2107:, 2083:) 2048:) 2029:) 2015:) 2004:}} 1998:{{ 1986:) 1972:) 1952:) 1933:) 1909:I 1891:; 1869:) 1854:) 1828:) 1810:; 1787:) 1767:) 1753:) 1638:) 1622:) 1504:) 1445:: 1426:; 1392:) 1377:) 1358:) 1318:) 1302:) 1286:) 1234:) 1220:) 1205:) 1186:) 1172:) 1157:) 1141:) 1104:) 1085:) 1070:) 1046:) 1032:) 998:) 960:) 929:) 895:) 861:) 837:) 814:) 804:if 761:) 753:. 721:) 696:) 682:) 663:) 642:) 625:) 617:-- 609:) 566:) 551:) 536:) 495:) 481:) 466:) 440:) 426:}} 420:{{ 404:) 386:) 346:) 331:) 305:) 287:) 269:) 255:) 236:) 218:) 198:) 181:) 165:) 94:→ 64:← 5165:( 5147:( 5131:( 5071:( 5057:( 5034:( 5011:( 4979:( 4939:( 4905:( 4895:" 4860:( 4837:( 4822:( 4808:( 4792:( 4753:( 4699:( 4678:( 4651:( 4635:( 4573:( 4547:( 4532:( 4504:- 4472:( 4446:( 4409:) 4401:( 4383:( 4350:( 4312:( 4298:( 4274:( 4260:( 4233:( 4205:( 4190:( 4172:( 4157:( 4143:( 4109:( 4091:( 4052:( 4038:( 4020:( 4002:( 3968:( 3944:( 3920:( 3905:( 3886:( 3834:( 3803:( 3788:( 3750:: 3727:( 3658:( 3609:( 3595:( 3577:( 3526:( 3497:( 3483:( 3465:( 3428:( 3413:( 3397:( 3368:( 3351:( 3332:( 3290:( 3270:( 3256:( 3228:( 3209:( 3141:( 3126:( 3097:( 3046:( 3007:( 2961:( 2946:( 2876:( 2851:( 2830:( 2796:( 2781:( 2759:( 2740:( 2710:( 2692:( 2678:( 2664:( 2648:( 2623:( 2586:( 2571:( 2513:( 2490:( 2472:( 2449:( 2421:( 2405:( 2389:( 2342:( 2327:( 2298:( 2283:( 2250:( 2219:( 2204:( 2146:( 2126:( 2079:( 2044:( 2025:( 2011:( 1982:( 1968:( 1948:( 1929:( 1883:( 1865:( 1850:( 1824:( 1802:( 1783:( 1763:( 1749:( 1685:- 1634:( 1618:( 1594:- 1574:- 1538:- 1500:( 1418:( 1388:( 1373:( 1354:( 1314:( 1298:( 1282:( 1230:( 1216:( 1201:( 1182:( 1168:( 1153:( 1137:( 1100:( 1081:( 1066:( 1042:( 1028:( 994:( 956:( 925:( 891:( 857:( 833:( 810:( 757:( 717:( 692:( 678:( 659:( 638:( 621:( 605:( 562:( 547:( 532:( 491:( 477:( 462:( 436:( 400:( 382:( 342:( 327:( 301:( 283:( 265:( 251:( 232:( 214:( 194:( 177:( 161:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 115 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index