Talk:Boccaccio (operetta)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Redundant field names in infobox?[edit]
The following field names are all arguably redundant, but still take up about a clunky chunk of the box: 'Native title', 'Translation', 'Language'. Only 'Librettist' and 'Premiere' is really needed here. For 'Librettist' we used 'text' in the past, as being shorter and clearer. What do other people think? I'd prefer to see a simpler box, or perhaps revert to the original navbox.
P.S. I'm rather surprised to see that Gerda Arendt is editing this box despite her recent restriction on infobox involvement. Kleinzach 09:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Editing an infobox and improving a template is not among Gerda's restrictions. The edit on Boccaccio (operetta) followed the improvement, which was fulfilling a request by Ruhrfisch on Brianboulton's talk page. PumpkinSky talk 12:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- The normal way to describe the "text" of an opera is its "libretto", and its writer as the "librettist". So no, I don't think that's an improvement. I don't consider listing the native and translated titles (if they have a standard English translation) unnecessary. Nor do I consider the language of the libretto to be redundant. If you want to suggest improvements/changes to this template in general, then you should join the current discussion at Template talk:Infobox opera. The page also documents the prior discussion and suggestions from several editors when the template was being developed. Note also that Gerda is not restricted from editing existing infobox templates, and the change was a very minor update. Voceditenore (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Voceditenore: "minor updates" are invariably tactical when it comes to infobox skirmishes. We all know that. A number of us (most of us?) were hoping for a moratorium on infoboxes until properly conducted discussions can take place. You yourself talked about
"three months . . . needed for all involved to return to normal editing”
[1]. Re your statement on the Opera Project on 24 June I thought you were stepping back from your involvement with this obviously controversial box. I am not going to join in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox opera. I think it's ill-advised to continue with that kind of thing at the moment. As for the wording of Gerda's restrictions — however they were phrased — ArbCom were clearly hoping that they would be effective. Kleinzach 15:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Voceditenore: "minor updates" are invariably tactical when it comes to infobox skirmishes. We all know that. A number of us (most of us?) were hoping for a moratorium on infoboxes until properly conducted discussions can take place. You yourself talked about
- My comment of June 24th at the Opera Project stands: "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" but said that I would not initiate or lead one there. If you wanted a moratorium on discussing infoboxes until the dust settles (as do I and many others), why did you start this discussion in the first place? You asked for an opinion on the parameters in the box. I gave it. Feel free to disregard it. Voceditenore (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Title/subtitle in the lead[edit]
This is the lead for Don Giovanni:
Don Giovanni (K. 527; complete title: [Il dissoluto punito, ossia il Don Giovanni] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), literally The Rake Punished, or Don Giovanni) is an opera in two acts . . .
Is there any reason why we shouldn't use the same format for this work? Kleinzach 15:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)