Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91→Archive 95
Archives Table of Contents

Linking underlying literary works

In working on the "operas set in the United States" category (see related question supra), I've stumbled across a number of instances in which an article refers to an opera and links the title to an article about an underlying literary work. For instance, Lake George Opera contains the following text, appearing here by the miracle of cut-and-paste:

In 1977, the company presented its fourth world premiere, Alva Henderson's The Last of the Mohicans.

If you click the opera's title, you'll be taken to an article about the novel; there is, as yet, no separate article about the opera. At least, in this case, the literary article contains a one-liner reference to the opera in a list of adaptations at the end, but I've seen others in which the opera is entirely unmentioned. When such situations crop up, what's the appropriate response? Revise the link to a yet-to-be created article (i.e., create a red link)? Remove the linkage entirely? Revise the sentence to delink the opera title but link words along the lines of "based on the novel/play/whatever of the same name"? Or leave things alone? I can see arguments in favor of each of these approaches, but I have no idea which, if any, is the opera project's preferred option, and I'd appreciate some guidance. --Drhoehl (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of that company, opera or composer. Normally I would suggest sien sort of rescue strategy, but as the article is one big act of plagiarism from [1], I wouldn't do anything until people have decided on whether to attempt a rescue.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I "rescued" it at Talk:Lake George Opera/Temp (now a stub) Sigh!!!!. But back to Drhoehl's original question..., if the opera is likely to deserve an article, then red-link it. You can get a reasonable idea by checking The Opera Corpus to see if it's red-linked there or for something fairly recent, a Google News search (all dates). If not, delink it. In either case, if it's known that it's based on another work, or on a particular person or event, then revise the sentence to add "based on X" with a link on X. That's what I've done with the re-written Lake george article. I don't know about other OP members, but I hate clicking on a link and then finding it goes to a completely different thing. It's very annoying to readers, and looks amateurish. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightenment. That would have been my preferred approach, and when time permits I'll try to retrace my steps and find other instances in need of attention. Otherwise, apologies for opening a can of worms regarding copyright violations. Drhoehl (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't apologize, that can has been open for some time.;-) It's now given us the impetus to attack the problem in a more systematic way. Voceditenore (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Title question

I was just wondering if there was a reason why Dido and Aeneas is redirected to Dido and Aeneas (opera). Seems like there really is no purpose for a disambiguated title.Singingdaisies (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A Bot seems to have been at fault: the diff is here, if you can work out what was going on (I'm off to bed!). --GuillaumeTell 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't a bot, the bot was only cleaning up the redirects. The original move was by a human who moved Dido and Æneas to Dido and Aeneas (opera) with the edit summary: removed ligature (see talk page) and disambiguated from the story). [2] I tend to agree with him about the diambiguating. I think the average person would type in "Dido and Aeneas" looking for the story rather than the opera. I'd leave it be. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? There's a dab page entitled Dido, but if you type in Dido and Aeneas you get to the opera via a redirect, not to Virgil's story. --GuillaumeTell 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. The bot was trying to fix a double-redirect as someone back in 2007 had moved Dido and Aeneas (the original name of the article) to Dido and Æneas over a redirect. Anyhow, I fixed the link on the Dido dab page to go directly to the opera. I also fixed the link in Template:Purcell operas. Ideally, the current Dido and Aeneas (redirect page) should be redirected to Dido (Queen of Carthage)#Virgil's Aeneid. But the major problem is that Dido and Aeneas currently has tons of incoming links from opera-related articles (nearly 50) Voceditenore (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I disagree. I think your average reader typing in "Dido and Aeneas" is likely to be looking for the opera: if I was the looking for the story I'd type "Dido" or "Aeneas", or more likely "The Aeneid". IMHO the opera page should simply be at Dido and Aeneas: this is the name of the opera and there is no other work (operatic or otherwise) for people to be confused with, Marlowe's play having a different name. Moreschi (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Moreschi has made the point that I should have made more clearly in my remarks above. It seems a disservice to Purcell in his anniversary year to have "(opera)" needlessly added to the title of his most well-known work. If User:JackofOz, who added "(opera)" was actually disambiguating it, as the edit summary says, what was he disambiguating it from? See here for his other activities on 22 August and adjacent days (need to scroll down a bit): the only D&A-related article he dealt with was Janet Baker. --GuillaumeTell 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Move made and double redirects fixed. Moreschi (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please...

Observe this addition and especially the edit summary. I assume it's a joke, but I've left him some advice at his talk page. You'd think after all the advice we've given to his alter-ego, he would have got the point by now, but alas.... Voceditenore (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Moreschi (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!

A new user, User:Squillovoce, has just created a bunch of articles on notable opera singers that are unreferenced and the new article police are on the prowl. One has already been deleted. Please see User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult.Singingdaisies (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I started the ball rolling on Maurizio Bensaude, but it needs much more help than I have time to give it just now. Drhoehl (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Triumph of St. Joan

I have submitted this article for peer review if any of you would care to comment.Singingdaisies (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

David Hillman

British tenor David Hillman recently died. His Times obituary is here. The obit says he died of a brain tumour, but my understanding is that it was prostate cancer that had spread. Perhaps someone from the opera project would like to start an article on him? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw him in various Scottish Opera productions and a few elsewhere. I'll get something going today. --GuillaumeTell 09:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template: Monteverdi operas

The image of Monteverdi on the template is very dark. I have made a slightly lighter version of the painting: File:Monteverdi 1620.jpg; would this be a suitable replacement in the template? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What about File:Claudio Monteverdi 4.jpg  ? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You can see both of these alternatives as they would look in templates at User talk:Voceditenore/Articles in progress 3. I like Michael's and think it would make a fine alternative. To me, Brian's looks terribly washed out. I personally don't think it's suitable for the template. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've also done another adjusted version of the one Brian is talking about (with only the shadows lightened and a bit brighter in general). You can see it on the same page as above. Voceditenore (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd vote for Michael's - the poor chap looks as if he's on his last legs, even when lightened, in the current image (perhaps he was!). --GuillaumeTell 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Michael's is from the Strozzi portarait, allegedly from 1640 which I find hard to believe. He looks about 40 years younger. But, yes, it is much better than my attempt to breathe some life into the other portrait, and I'd vote for it, too. Please see my note, below, on another matter. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Operas by composer templates.

1. As I've been converting the templates to the collapsible navbox versions, e.g. Template:Rossini operas, I've also been improving the images used and adding public domain images where they were currently lacking, e.g. Template:Honegger operas which used to look like this. I was wondering about using a "place-holder" image for the ones where no PD image is available. I tried Template:Milhaud operas as an experiment. What do members think? Should I do this with other templates which currently have no PD photo and are unlikely to have one for a while due to the age of the composer.? Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I really like this idea. It looks much better to have an image of some kind in the template than to leave it completely empty.Singingdaisies (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2.I was also bemused to see that User:Pigsonthewing has edited some of them, e.g. Template:Glass operas to add hCard microformat with the edit summary:

hCard microformat (for "people, organisations and venues") - see WP:UF.

It doesn't affect the templates as such, but I'm rather puzzled as to why it's being added to what is clearly a simple navigation template. That template will never have Philip Glass' "contact details" on it, nor is it used in the actual article on Philip Glass. So what kind of "information" are they supposed to generate? I'm bemused. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ad 1): IMHO the image is superfluous.
ad 2): I'm equally bemused and puzzled by Andy Mabbett's work on those templates; I had a fruitless discussion with him about that some time ago — <shrug />. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of us with long memories can remember various run-ins with Pigsonthewing on the subject of microformats, I believe in connexion with infoboxes for singers. He's also appeared at WP:ANI with some regularity.

On the question of images in the navboxes, I agree that something is better than nothing, but could the image be something that looks a bit more operatic than demisemiquavers. What about, say, a picture of La Scala (rather than anything obviously linked to a specific opera or composer or singer)? --GuillaumeTell 14:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Mr. Mabbett, ah, yes, I remember him well. When I first peeked into the Opera Project 3 years ago, he was driving everyone nuts with the infoboxes. That's why I didn't even bother to ask him on his talk page.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibilities for images... several other experiments are at User talk:Voceditenore/Articles in progress 3. One uses an image of something associated with Milhaud with alt text to explain what it is: "The Opéra-Comique in Paris where Milhaud's first opera premiered" (idea can be adapted for other composers). Another uses quite a nice photo of a conductor's full score and baton (seen from a distance, so you can't tell what the music is). The rest use opera house interiors. Would any of those work? I would be reluctant to use an exterior unless the theatre was specifically related to the composer. - Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Any of the opera-house interiors would be fine by me. The conductor's score doesn't seem (to me) to be much of an improvement on the demisemiquavers - neither of them say "opera", just "classical music". The Milhaud idea is a good one for cases where a house can be associated with the composer. --GuillaumeTell 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Re the images-in-lieu-of-unavailable-portraits... Unless anyone has any objections, I'll use an opera house exterior closely connected with the composer, or if all else fails, one of the opera house interiors suggested above. I'll leave this section here for a couple of more days in case anyone wants to comment further. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Why must all of these templates have a picture? Is "no picture" an option? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, would it be possible for the default state on some of the smaller templates be "uncollapsed"? Many of the navboxes are actually quite small. The Honneger and Milhaud ones mentioned above are excellent examples where I think an uncollapsed default would be preferable. Even a case like Haydn (list of 12) would look good uncollapsed. Other navboxes have a "state = uncollapsed" which can be set somewhere so this could be configured on the template page.DavidRF (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I know zilch about template coding, alas. I just use the model developed by Shoemaker's Holiday for Template:Handel. I've tried leaving the image out (both by leaving "image=" blank or by eliminating the field altogether) but this is the result:
Darius Milhaud
Operas
Can anyone find a way to have an "uncollapsed" default option and/or a way to eliminate the picture? Having said that, like GuillaumeTell, I think it looks better to have something related to the composer in them rather than just a grey list in the corner of the article. Singingdaisies agrees with us too and as we know, he speaks for at least 8 people! (Just joking.) Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The template {{Composer navbox}} uses for a lot of its work the template {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} which seems to be misnamed as it doesn't allow for a non-collapsed state. This template in turn uses Template:Sidebar which, unlike the first two, does allow for the absence of the parameter |image=. Thus, a minor (albeit beyond me) recoding of the first two templates should suffice to allow for absent images.
Expanding the functionality of these templates to control their collapsed/uncollapsed state seems a much bigger coding issue. In a way, this could be overcome by using the old Template:Infobox Operas which allows for a missing image but doesn't collapse (which defect started the development of {{Composer navbox}} in the first place); that's of course unsatisfactory because the collapsed/uncollapsed state is not really dependent on the composer but on the length of the article about a work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} has all the functionality we want. It has the ability to skip the image by just omitting the image argument (or leaving it blank). And the ability to configure the collapsed state can be done on the article level by using the uncollapsed list name as an argument (e.g. {{Milhaud operas|Operas}}). See Conservative Judaism for an example of a list that is left open by default. That example would work well with the Handel template because it has three lists and you usually only want one of them expanded. We could just bypass the {{Composer navbox}} template and use {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} directly, but then all the display styles that {{Composer navbox}} sets would have to be cloned in each template. All of this is just a question of how we can get those arguments passed through the template hierarchy. Anyone know any template-coding gurus with some spare time?DavidRF (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That's very good news. It shouldn't be too difficult to teach the Template:Composer navbox to pass the parameters |image= and an uncollapsed list name to {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. It's now 02:10 here, so I won't be able to play with Template:Composer navbox/sandbox until tomorrow evening Australian time, unless someone else beats me to it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Darius Milhaud
Operas
Done, I think. In the end, the modifications to Template:Composer navbox turned out to be quite straightforward – it just took a few attempts to find them. The three testcases at Template:Composer navbox/testcases show 1) that the new template behaves the same as the old one when invoked with the same parameters; 2) that the absence of |image= is properly handled and that a section can be initially shown as expanded; 3) section expansion also works with an image present, this time expanding a different section.
The example on the right is taken from above, using Template:Composer navbox/sandbox. The next steps are 1) for other interested editors to play with Template:Composer navbox/testcases; 2) decide whether or not to use the modified code; if yes: 3) update the documentation at Template:Composer navbox/doc and 4) transport the code from Template:Composer navbox/sandbox to Template:Composer navbox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring this out. Is there a way that the expanded state can be passed in as a parameter as is possible with {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}? I tried this by creating {{Handel/sandbox}} and testing it at User:DavidRF/Sandbox2 and that does not work. It would be nice to be able to open a different list depending on which page we're on (as is relevant for Handel). It could also be useful in toggling the behavior depending on article length (collapsed for stubs, expanded for non-stubs).DavidRF (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I made one change to {{Handel/sandbox}}; it now works. I hope the usage will become clear once the documentation is updated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Very cool. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not in favour of determining the collapsed/uncollapsed state by length of article. Or have I misunderstood David's latest suggestion? The whole reason we made them collapsed in the first place is that even if the article is fairly developed, even a moderately long navbox seriously intereferes with and limits the layout of other images, and it is is visually intrusive. As far as I can see, the only reason to have this new format is to cope with composers for whom there is no photograph and who have only a 3 or 4 operas to list or for cases where we might want to have 2 or more lists in one navbox. Voceditenore (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I was just guessing for a reason as to why one might want the same template expanded on some articles and collapsed on others. A long template overwhelming a stub was one guess. If the consensus is to keep it collapsed for a particular article, then I'm not proposing to change that. I like that the option to expand the list is there if editors decide that it works for a particular article.DavidRF (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comments

I've started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Dealing_with_aftermath_of_serial_copyright_violator, to try to see whether anyone is prepared to work through Swanson's articles to identify all the copyvios.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Peter. I've been going through his stuff when I can, but much more help is needed, otherwise none of us on the OP will ever actually write or expand articles ourselves. A mess is right! Fortunately (sort of), the multitude of articles he created on opera companies are all from online stuff and are fairly easy to check by running a google phrase search (and looking at his own references). And fortunately, (sort of), he obligingly listed all his creations subcategorized by subject here. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've set up the complete lists of the Nrswanson articles to be checked. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup for details and how to help. If any of you have any time to spare, even if it's only one article, it would be an immense help. I'll also notify Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems of the sub page's exisitance, so we can hopefully get even help. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to help out, I've extensively revised Palm Beach Opera, which I moved to the "repaired" list. Hydra-like, however, another violation cropped up as I did some final checking of my work: Cincinnati Opera contained some text lifted verbatim from the company's Internet site and more text that sounds awfully suspicious but that I didn't have time to check. I therefore dutifully slapped the "copyvio" tag on it, as directed on the Nrswanson mess subpage. The Cincinnati article, however, was the work of an anonymous IP address, not Nrswanson, so I didn't add it to the list on the subpage. If any of that was a mistake, would somebody please let me know? I'd hate to cause more trouble in trying to lend a hand. Drhoehl (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help, Drhoehl! You did fine. I think that for now it's probably a good idea to keep Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup for checking/cleaning up the Nrswanson articles, unless we find another serial plagiariser. Other articles tagged with COPYVIO can be found at our Opera Project alerts which is automatically updated by a bot. (It should be frequently checked.) Meanwhile, I've now repaired the Cincinnati article at Talk:Cincinnati Opera/Temp. The whole thing was a blatant paste from http://www.cincinnatiopera.com/content.jsp?articleId=51, complete with drecky PR hype. The IP who added most of it, not surprisingly, traces back to Cincinnati, Ohio. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your guidance and followup. I've taken it on myself to keep plugging away at the list, and, alas, again I have a question with which to pester you. Robin Follman is a 3-sentence article of the form "Artist is an American soprano. She has sung with companies including A, B, C, D, and E. She has performed concerts with orchestras including W, X, Y, and Z." The lists "A, B, C, D, and E" and "W, X, Y, and Z" are pulled verbatim from the singer's Internet site, but the modest text framing them appears original. My recollection from high school (all too many years ago) is that copying a mere comma-separated series is, or at least was, not "plagiarism," but does it constitute a copyright violation? If so, the Follman article is guilty; otherwise, I think it can safely be moved to "checked and OK."
As long as I'm about this, I've had a look at a couple of articles containing text that sounds suspiciously as if it started life elsewhere, most likely the artist's page, but the reference link(s) have gone dead, and the artist's page "biography" entry is either missing or pretty obviously recently changed to something entirely different. Whether or not those articles emplify this potential problem, how are we to detect and deal with text lifted from a Web source that no longer exists? Drhoehl (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Re articles like Robin Follman... simple lists of opera houses, roles, etc. are OK. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism have useful guidance on these issues.
Re suspicious but no longer traceable chunks... if they don't appear anywhere that can be found, it's probably not a serious issue. The problem is, that type of copy/paste usually lacks encyclopedic tone, i.e. it's obvious PR-speak and peacockery. Such articles should be edited to make them neutral, encyclopedic and boring.;-). That will usually take care of any residual copyvio. If the only source is their own web site or that of their management, I also slap on {{primarysources}}. By the way, dealing with bios of living singers is a real pain. A lot of them are written by the singers themselves or their agents, and the battle to "educate" them can be lengthy and tedious, e.g. this, this, and this. For really famous singers, it can be a constant battle with panting fans, e.g. this and weirdos with a grudge, e.g. this. Drives me nuts!;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Much obliged--the outlines on plagiarism are most enlightening, and as to "this, this, and this," all I can say is: you have the patience of a saint! As a heads up, Hydra struck again just now: in trying to check out Encompass New Opera Theatre (results so far inconclusive), I stumbled across and flagged problems with the non-Nrswanson entry for the recently-disbanded Amato Opera, yet another crib from a company's Internet site. Too bad on all counts; sounds as if it was a neat, plucky little organization well worth a legitimate article. [Update: since I wrote the foregoing, a much more experienced user, with whom I collaborated a time or two, corresponded with me about the Amato page and has given it a working over. I haven't reviewed it, but his work is always careful to a fault.] Drhoehl (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The other editor is right in that using {{copyvio}} on an article with only scattered possible instances (and many editors) is too drastic a solution. In those cases it's best to mention it on the talk page and list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems under the date heading of the date you are reporting it. Use:
* {{subst:article-cv|ArticleName}} from [http://www.WhereItWasCopiedFrom.com] (+ any further comments signed with ~~~~)
The copyright people than can then investigate it. If it's one of the articles on WikiProject Opera/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup, just move it to the Checked articles needing repair section, and Moonridengirl and I can check it out. I do, however, disagree with the editor that:
"These opera companies do not mind if Wikipedia uses some language from their websites, as long as there is a link to their websites - the Wikipedia articles bring traffic to their websites."
That is no excuse for copyright violation. And besides, it brings the articles into disrepute, making them look like they were edited by someone with a conflict of interest, even when they're not. Another thing to watch out for is that sometimes an article appears to have been copied from another source, but actually the other source copied from Wikipedia - often without attribution. I've found instances of small opera companies (and some not so small ones) cribbing Wikipedia opera synopses. The checks can be quite laborious, so if in any doubt, just report the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, rather than adding the big {{copyvio}} tag. I'll nip over to our sub-page and clarify this in the instructions. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My impression was that the Amato article drew more heavily than "scattered" instances, and the corresponding page on its site appeared to be "source" rather than "copy." That said, your advice is unassailably sound, and I'll take it to heart. Again, my apologies that every time I see a can labeled "worms" I seem to have an uncontrollable urge to break out an opener. (Oh, by the way, I got a good laugh out of the "world copying Wikipedia" problem a while back; a record dealer cribbed us in an auction listing--and I was the initial author!) Drhoehl (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nrswanson mess – current work

On another issue in the Nrswanson mess... Moonriddengirl, who's being an invaluable help to us with this problem, has flagged up the following at our Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup . (Neither she nor I have access to Grove online.) Can any OP members help? -Voceditenore (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Ariadne auf Naxos (Benda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Moved this one for review here. It's probably clean. I've checked it among general sources, but I did get a weak hit on The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, page 306, which I cannot view. The words that made the radar light up were "Brandes adapted a cantata by Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg as", but they were not a sequential match. If somebody could just glance to be sure that there is no close paraphrasing of that source, this one should be movable to OK.
I've looked at Grove Opera (I have the hard copy), and neither the above wording nor any other passage has been lifted verbatim from there, so I'll move it to OK. GuillaumeTell 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Not from Grove but I have just re-written/edited the Historical background which consisted of verbatim lifts + CP from a Guardian article and the All Music Guide.Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, Grove Opera has not been plagiarised. GuillaumeTell 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the above 2, GT. That's a big help. It's very embarassing to when huge chunks come from Grove. Unfortunately, other online sources have been very closely paraphrased to the point of copyvio in Artaxerxes. I'm currently working on a clean version at Talk:Artaxerxes (opera)/Temp.Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one that needs a look (commentary by Moonriddengirl) - Voceditenore (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The synopsis is taken word for word from Grove Opera. I can probably reword it with the aid of Viking. --GuillaumeTell 10:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that. I'll delete the synopsis section for now and post on the talk page. Then you can re-write at your leisure. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added Green tickY by them to show that you're currently checking them. Since they were unchecked before, I assume no one else is working on them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Done Griselda (Vivaldi). I've erred on the side of caution and removed anything likely to be a copyvio. I've replaced the synopsis with the one I wrote for Griselda (A. Scarlatti) (essentially the same libretto). --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Done the Grove sections of Griselda (Bononcini). I don't have access to the Oxford book referenced there though. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I just checked to see if it's available through oxfordmusiconline.com (I have a personal subscription) but it's not (they do have the Oxford Companion to Music, and the Oxford Dictionary of Music, in addition to the complete Grove and Grove opera). Antandrus (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm just going to remove it just to be on the safe side. Some of the Grove material in that article was straight copy-and-paste. --Folantin (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Messidor (opera) reverted to pre-Swanson version. --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Good decision Folantin. Just be careful when you're removing the plagiarized stuff that you don't remove any positive additions to the article. I went back and re-added a cat, template, and some of the role creators. Geez this whole mess is a headache. Kudos to all of you who are weed-wacking this mess.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Progress report from the CopyVio Sweatshop

So far 88 articles have been checked. Of those, 36 had copyvio to some degree. All have been repaired. Most involved removing plagiarised synopses. However, 8 had extensive copyvio requiring complete re-writes or stubbing.

I've now added more articles to the sweatshop for the next round, prioritising those which had been DYKs or are linked at Portal:Opera and those which appear to be heavily based on Grove Online. Between Nrswanson and his prolific alter-ego Singingdaisies, we're talking about 700 articles created/significantly expanded. But we're not checking them all. I'm completely excluding articles which don't carry the OP banner. Those can be someone else's problem. We've got enough on our collective plate. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it in perspective

I think it's important that we keep the Swanson problem in perspective and not let it take over the OP's creative work. We just have to accept that cleanup is going to be a long haul and do what we can, when we can. The world isn't going to come to an end if all those articles aren't immediately checked/repaired. Fortunately, they aren't "high traffic", and only about 10% of his articles appear to have major problems. And, we're on record as being aware of and addressing the issue as best we can. Also, this is not an OP problem, and we can't be expected to tackle it singlehandedly. The whole culture of Wikipedia needs to change. The Copyright Cleanup Project are desperate for more volunteers, especially admins who can delete and overwrite articles. When I think of the enormous amounts of time and energy wasted by the drama-mongering on ANI when people could be doing something really worthwhile...

Anyhow, I'm going to work on some OP guidelines with specific guidance on and warnings about the evils of copyvio, and some tips on how to spot it, what to do if you find it etc. I'll post a link to the draft here when it's done so members can tweak it before it goes live. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another sock round from Mr Swanson!

We've just done a big check and the results are in. The following are all socks of Nrswanson (talk · contribs), now all blocked.

This leaves us with a bunch more material to check for copyvio, Les Arts Florissants not least. Moreschi (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Groan. --Folantin (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The message seems to be that if a user's productivity seems too good to be true, then it probably is. Perhaps WP:DYK and other projects that dole out gold starts should be more on the lookout. Anyone feel tactful enough to broach it with them?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Good Grief !! I had strong suspicions about Singingdaisies and Plumadesabiduría, but all the rest? Fortunately, the threads here about Nrswanson seems to have put him somewhat on his guard. Most of the articles created by these socks seem to be OK-ish. Maybe I should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys to run their program on him and the socks. We can't check all this alone. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Makes this section [4] rather interesting. --Folantin (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear dear, that's almost as good as talking to yourself. Re Peter Cohen, I just posted something to that effect on WP:AN. Moreschi (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm off to the Copyright Cleanup folks. The first time he pulled this (in 2007 with yet 2 more sockpuppets), neither Moreschi nor I and could believe he would be so stupid and defended him and "his friends" from the accusations of sockpuppetry, thus incurring accusations that we were his meat puppets. At one point I was even proposed as "the ring master". Sigh!!!! Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not one of my finest moments, that. Anyway, I see Moonriddengirl has promised to run the copyvio-check program soon, and I've emailed Grove to see if they might like/are able to revoke his subscription. Given the sheer quantity of the copyvio from there I think that's perfectly fair enough. Moreschi (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't a bad moment. We're always told to assume good faith, especially with newcomers, but that policy ought to come with a health warning to the assumers. From now on I'm going to bite every newbie who edits an opera-related article. Seriously though, given Nrswwanson's modus operandi and insatiable desire to edit on Wikipedia, I suspect new socks will eventually pop up from different ISPs. I doubt if Grove Online will be able to block him completely, as access is available through tons of libraries. But it's very good that you let them know Wikipedia's aware of the problem and trying to solve it. From now on we just have to be vigilant about new opera-related articles and new users who edit in that area. Voceditenore (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Call me Mr Naïve. Maybe I should forget opera and just stick to architecture. --GuillaumeTell 00:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you dare! ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested, the talk page for Nrswanson as Squillovoce contains a message in which Nrswanson as Singingdaisies explains to himself the importance of including references. It does not, however, contain a block notice such as I've seen on some of his other other sockpuppet pages. Nor do any of the other talk pages for these "users." Are we sure they've been blocked by now? Drhoehl (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I was one of the editors who ticked off some of the relevant recent opera items at DYK. Absent a subscription to Grove and a lot of determination, I can't really see how the issues would be picked up. I'm a little concerned that if us 'lay editors' (ie. without subject area expertise) were to not review all, for example, opera-related DYKs, it would place quite a burden on a small number of active editors like Voceditenore to patrol DYK. If they don't, then bona fide editors trying to contribute at DYK and who happen to prepare opera-related articles will be scratching their heads over why nothing happens to their noms. But anyway, I expect it will work itself out in the end. Thanks for all your work and your vigilance, Moreschi and others. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well fortunately, I think the problem is unlikely to arise again for opera-related articles, unless (until?) Nrswanson re-emerges from Sockpuppet Swamp. Virtually all the opera-related DYKs were by him or one of his clones, apart from a few that I've submitted and some from a couple of other members here. It's a niche area and I suspect very few would have to be run past one of us.
But I do sympathize with the problem faced by the DYK project, there is so much to do and only so many volunteers. It's also not a DYK specific problem. There needs to be much more general awareness of these issues throughout Wikipedia. I should also point out that in my trawling through Nrswanson's talk page archives, I've found a couple of instances where a DYK editor actually spotted the copyvio and fixed it, e.g. [5]. Perhaps one of the ways forward is for the DYK project to have a page with guidance for editors there on how to spot potential copy/pastes, and to advise them to read the whole article, not just the hook and its ref. With a little bit of guidance, even non-specialist editors can make a pretty good judgement if something needs a second opinion. For example, Weiße Rose (opera) got a DYK last year with this (and much more) in it, completely unattributed:
"...as brother and sister shout their desperate challenge to humanity against the insistent march of a gathering army and the cries of a vast mob coming from all around the theater. And then silence. The echoes of the music die away, but the voices of Hans and Sophie Scholl resonate in the silence"
Next week, I'm going to put together a copyright guidance page for the Opera Project. I'd be happy to do a briefer, more general one for the DYK project if you think it would be helpful, as I'm sure the problem exists in all subject areas submitted for DYKs. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That would, I think, be enormously helpful. Definitely a great idea. Moreschi (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • DYK project members obviously can't be expected to check against subscription-only sites. However, Swanson does plagiarise other online sources that are available to everyone. A little bit of scrutinising the sources in conjunction with the article might turn up evidence of palgiarism.
Also monitoring of statistics would be useful. Swanson and socks of his such as SingingDaisies produced too many articles of quality in a short time for it to be strictly believable once one starts contemplating material. A record of who has produced several DYKs in a short time could be a signal that an account needs scrutinising further. Also a bot notifying projects monthly of dyks in their area might also let them spot unusual productivity. Swanson and his opera work happens to be the current focus of attention, but future serial copyright violators might have other areas of interest.
Plagiarisers could crop up anywhere but dyk strikes me as one of the places where the danger signs might be most easilly spotted.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Voodoobug

I checked all of "Voodoobug's" articles on Czech composers today and they are all verbatim from Grove Music Online. I've blanked them with {{copyvio}} and notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers in case they want to try to rescue them. We've got enough on our plate here with the opera-related ones. There's more to come. Sigh!!!! Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That proves the guy was trolling all along. It wasn't just naivety. He knew we were on a copyvio clean-up drive when he pulled that stunt. Plus, there are comments like this [6]. Gah! What an absolute jerk. I'll try to help out a bit over the weekend. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sock contributions update

I've analysed the "Nrswanson" socks so we can prioritise the checks. Here's the story:

"Singingdaisies" rarely used Grove and seems to have cobbled many of the articles together from bare-bones facts via google-translated German and Czech sites and newspaper articles. From what I've seen so far, they aren't obviously copyvio, but will eventually check the rest. "Plumesbaduria" generally only made minor edits, mostly to preserve "Nrswanson's" articles. Only one article listed for checking in the sweatshop.

I'm sure the blatant copyvio from "Voodoobug" was pure trolling, with "Singingdaisies" planning to step in and make a good name for himself by rescuing the articles. Ditto the fake COI account "ITroupová" (fortunately only one article, Irena Troupová, and OK from the copyvio angle). Ditto "Squillovoce" and his completely unreferenced and unwikified contributions, which fortunately weren't copyvio.

"Inebriatedmind" also looks like a smokescreen and 'insurance' account (Observe [7] and [8]) but significantly expanded several articles. I checked Les Arts Florissants (ensemble) by him, and it seems fine. I'll eventually check the rest, but they seem at first glance not to be blatant copyvio. And the last of the current crop, "Bellamusicavoce" only made one significant contribution - copyvio and I've stubbed it.

His previous round of socks: "Inmysolitude", "Divinediscourse", "Insearchofintelligentlife", "Ringnpassagio", and "Voicequeen" were 'only' used for vote-stacking and edit-warring. "Broadweighbabe" was used for that too, but also wrote a lot of articles - fortunately not opera-related. "Neeladave" seems to have only concentrated on TV articles.

So the basic mess is the stuff edited by "Nrswanson", plenty soul-destroying on its own. :(( Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_89&oldid=1190132501"