Keeping up with developments at Wexford Festival Opera, Opera North and, to an extent, Glyndebourne Festival Opera is quite enough, if not a bit too much, for me. I have no association with the company (or any other company) and don't see their work very often, so I'd agree that slimming down the article is probably a good idea. You and I, and probably others, have toned down the contributions to meet WP's standards, but recently the source/sources has/have dried up, perhaps because of sockpuppetry allegations. Unless someone feels like keeping them updated, I wonder if it is appropriate for them still to be here, or whether the article would not be better served by sending people to the company's own site? What do you think? Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 07:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Looking at a selection of the edits here, I'm guessing that much of the content of the article was contributed by a/some person(s) associated with the company.
What's to become of the dated (in both senses, hoho) lists of productions and community outreach projects? They're fine if someone's got the energy to keep updating them but at the moment they look as if they've somewhat run out of steam - or, worse, they could give the impression that the company has done so! We show 09 respectively. Guillaume Tell 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Dated lists - a hostage to fortune? Permission from whom, and to do what exactly? Help please?! Thanks DBaK ( talk) 17:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe it means that they aren't subject to surveillance on their travels. " what is actually meant about the "special permissions to travel"? I am sure it has some specific meaning to the editor who contributed it, but I can't see what it might be. In this, "ETO is sponsored in part by Arts Council England and has special permissions to travel freely throughout the country with regular performances in London, Cambridge. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Special permissions to travel Thanks for the tips!Īnd thank you very much for improving the article so gracefully. But it kind of works in the long term even though it can cause short-term frustration! (Believe me, I have been there.) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 13:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I should add, in passing, that I am relieved that the horrible word "vibrant" has been quietly zapped! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Revisions made Ĭool. If you are new to WP you will find this odd at first - you can't just say something even if you know or feel you know it to be true - you have to say it neutrally and be prepared to back it up. The ETO aims to be wonderful (Wikipedia reports the ETO's verifiable claim that it is).The ETO is wonderful (Wikipedia says it is).I know it's a minor wording change but I feel that there's all the difference in the world between: " which I feel is much less contentious because it is merely reporting what the ETO states is an objective, and this could presumably be backed up by a mission statement or whatever that ETO has published and is easily verifiable. It used to say something more like (and I am quoting from memory here): "the ETO aims to bring high quality opera to. " - now I may be being too sensitive but to me that's a claim being made by the article itself - we, Wikipedia, are saying that that's what it does, and it is indistinguishable from something like a marketing statement from the company itself, which is an impression we should avoid. Here's another one that makes me slightly uncomfortable: "the ETO brings high quality opera to. Some editors would just remove it and others would mark it with a tag asking for a citation - prove it or lose it, kind of thing. I feel that the article is steadily getting better but the sort of thing that's been troubling me is terms like "groundbreaking" which I feel are quite open to challenge. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Revision ĭo you have specific advice/pointers to make the information in the article better/more useful? 81.137.208.66 ( talk) 11:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I'm far from an expert but I think that quite a lot of what you need to know is covered in and especially the bit that talks about the "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV). I can't now see any justification for keeping the advert tag which I added earlier. I wonder if it can be tweaked a bit further to represent more of a WP:NPOV? DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 07:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Hugely improved and still improving. The recent rewrite, while useful in many ways, has made the article sound rather OTT about ETO.
0 kommentar(er)
