I've started a draft. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|full_name=
|native_name_lang=
|native_name=
Other issues:
Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
|translated_name=
Come to think of it, shouldn't the fields be "Native title" and "Other title" rather than "Native name" or "Other name"? These are works of art not people. Voceditenore (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to look at {{Infobox play}}, but also {{Infobox musical composition}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
General comment: I would try to avoid overlinking in the parameters (bold and blue is distracting), and overly long field names that take two lines, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, an infobox for an opera requires elements from both types of infobox because it is a complex art form which combines both music and drama. It should also use the vocabulary that is correct for this subject, e.g. "Librettist" not "Text" for the field containing the name of the librettist. Agree re excessive linking in the field names. Voceditenore (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I applaud the effort. I'd also like to suggest working the operas that don't easily fit into the categories as a way of refining the template. For example: operas by multiple composers or multiple librettists; operas whose text is in more than one language, operas that exist in multiple versions (revisions), etc. -- kosboot (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd leave out "Revisions" as a separate field, too messy for an infobox, and once again, an invitation to writing essays in the box. If anything, and provided they are major revisions, they can be listed under "Other titles", e.g. for Lucia di Lammermoor list Lucie de Lammermoor, for Don Carlos, list Don Carlo. I'd definitely leave out extra infoboxes in the article for each revision. Very intrusive on the layout for very little value. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the impressive sample, I would like to know if it's a singspiel or an opera seria, and how many acts it has, on what play by whom it is based, and if real personalities play a role, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to build {{Italic title}} into the box so that adding it automatically italicises the article title. The composer navboxes that are currently at the head of most article do that, e.g. {{Smyth operas}}. That would be very convenient. Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we should have this but could it be coded like {{Infobox person}} where birth_date and birth_place are listed but both appear in separate lines under the single visible field "Born"? Example:
Premiere 27 March 1786
Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking at {{infobox musical composition}}, I suggest we also have room for a catalogue no, - Mozart's works have one, but it is not part of the title. The period doesn't need to be mentioned for him and other known composers, but for lesser known people it might make sense to see at a glance if it is Baroque or contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why the Type parameter generates the visible label "Genre" in Andy's examples with the Wikidemon, but when Gerda used the template here, the visible label was "Type", which is less than ideal. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
To the right is a type of opera infobox proposed by Gerda, but I am assuming that this would be similar to the type of thing she'd propose in any infobox. Comments please. Voceditenore (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
TLDR version: It should be restricted to very basic key points, easily visible and understandable, not an attempt to rewrite the article in a vertical box. Note to everyone else, the current proposal does not look like this at all. See Template: Infobox opera/doc. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Example for discussion On pop music pages the infobox shows a Single or Album within the chronology of the discography for that artist. An example can be seen here - the releases immediately before and after are presented. Something similar could be possible for operas, if wished almost-instinct 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
All the above transferred here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera with this edit. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
As much as I would like plenty of information in the infobox, I admit this does look cluttered. I'm generally in favor of restricting the information to the first performance (and that goes for genre at the first performance, too). After just trying to formulate a justification, I even come down to just the first performance (despite cases where the subsequent version of the opera is the more well-known one, e.g. Macbeth, La forza del destino, Ariadne auf Naxos, etc.). -- kosboot (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that the article text puts "grand opera" in quotes for a reason and qualifies it with the word format for a reason. In other words, it resembled grand opera in that way, but that is entirely different from stating that the opera's genre was first an opéra comique and then a grand opera. It merely proves my point about the need to keep it simple. The subtleties of the contextualised prose were completely lost in the infobox and ended up misleading the hapless person who reads only that. And yes, I'm aware of Google's "infoboxes", which they seem to be able to generate quite adequately without any need for an infobox in the Wikipedia article. They do an adequate job on Verdi as well [1] despite the fact that his WP article has no infobox either. Voceditenore (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ludovic Halévy
This is what the Carmen infobox would look like, based on Example 2 from the template page, which I think is the most practical of those listed. This largely accords with the principles set out, above, by Voceditenore; a simple summary of basic information which is not susceptible to misunderstanding. There are, however, a few points of concern:
In summary, subject to further discussion on the outstanding points, I can't think that anyone would have much objection to an opera infobox using a template along such lines. It will provide the opportunity for showing more attractive images; some of the composers (e.g. Monteverdi) look far from welcoming. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Reply to Brian's suggestions
In summary Like Brian, I feel a simple infobox on this model would be very useful for opera articles, and I think acceptable to just about all editors working in the field here. I'd also like to emphasize that simplicity is needed not only to prevent misleading over-simplification, but also to keep the box easy to read, with the truly key information easily accessible and not lost in a morass of detail and/or added prose. Equally important in my view, is that an infobox should be easy for editors to edit and apply without requiring lots of extra and more complicated coding, without hitting an editor (or a potential new editor) in the face with a massive wall of code as soon as they open the edit window, and with minimum scope for introducing inaccuracies. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Before we can go live with this there are still some outstanding things to do, based on the above discussion.
Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Example tried. I don't remember: do we not want to be able to mention what was the base for the libretto, in this case Orlando Furioso by Ariosto? Orlando is the original name rather than a native, but not "other name". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
|based_on=
|librettist=
Responses
Voceditenore (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The validity of |genre= was questioned, in response the field shows as "Description" for now, awaiting further discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
|genre=
I now restored "genre", adding "description" alternatively for cases when genre is "impossible". I liked to see that in the Britten list the same key facts as shown as in "our" template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion related to the L'Arianna experiment created the wish to show that a thing (title) with often a foreign name is an opera right on top. As a fast response, I created an extra parameter |genre_header=, so far unconditional. We should discuss if this should be replaced by |genre=, and if so, what to do with additional information such as the number of acts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
|genre_header=
|?=
Do we really need to wiki-link the word "opera" (or operetta) on the first line of the info box? The rest is fine: concise and to the point. Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=alt
Would it possible to reformat the premiere date and place information? The dash ( – ) after the date looks very clumsy and often leads to unfortunate break-up of the premiere location over two or three lines. Using html (</br>) to force a break is undesirable and also strands that dash. Using {{nowrap}} can produce an overly wide box with too much white space around the image. I'd much prefer a format like that in {{infobox person}} where there are separate fields for birth date and birth place but they appear in the box as simply 2 separate lines after Born with no dashes e.g.
Premiere 23 July 1845 Teatro San Carlo, Naples
Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Andy, does Michael's version make the metadata about the premiere place completely unavailable? Or is it simply a case of not representing it as a "timeline". Also, can you point me to another type of infobox in an actual article which uses {{Timeline-event}} so I can see what it looks like and if it also contains that awkward dash? Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I found one Rite of Spring. However, as far as I can make out {{Timeline-event}} seems to be overwhelmingly used in list sections in the articles' text, e.g. [2] . Only 3 other infoboxes use it Template:Infobox musical, Template:Infobox ballet, Template:Infobox Bach composition, all of which were altered by you to add that format. Surely, one could be coded specifically for performances? Sometimes "one size does not fit all". Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't this infobox simply use the template {{italic title}} instead of its current much more complicate code? I've amended the sandbox accordingly; current diff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding a parameter to have an upright scale. Wishlist:
|image_upright=
Why are the labels "Translation" and "Other title" presented in italics? The content/data should be in italics, but not the labels. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
<span style="font-style:italic;">{{{translated_name|}}}</span>
{{{other_name|}}}
Can we have a parameter 'full_title'? E.g Rienzi's full title is Rienzi, der Letzte der Tribunen. But there is no option for this in the present template. 'native_title' (see e.g. Tannhäuser) or 'other_name' won't really do in these circumstances; both are rather misleading if an infobox is supposed to give an accurate summary.--Smerus (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
For operas with no known performances (such as those by Henrique Oswald) or where the premiere was a long time after their composition, this template needs a |composition date= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
|composition date=
