Talk:Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

Active discussions
Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2015.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 16, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Opera (Rated FA-class)
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

Pisandro X AnfinomoEdit

Anfinomo is the countertenor, instead of Pisandro, mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.160.225 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Article expansionEdit

As advised on the OperaProject talkpage, this expansion is under way. It should be complete towards the end of February. The article will gradually assume a structure similar to that employed on its sister article L'incoronazione di Poppea. This will involve the writing of a new lead, and several new sections. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

TFAREdit

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Accepted: later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Puppet TheatreEdit

A series of IP addresses in Ontario and the University of Toronto are adding mention of a Puppet Theatre doing a touring production of this opera, without citation of notability. Would this be considered important enough to mention, even if sources could be produced indicating it was a notable production? --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. We don't even list memorable stagings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I also think it isn't sufficiently notable. The article already mentions the Kentridge production, which uses puppets and animation—since it has been produced in countries around the world for over a decade, I think it uses up the puppet example (a second is WP:UNDUE). Also, as Bread & Puppet uses only 75 of the 180 minutes of music, it's not like they're doing the full opera, or even half of it (which Kentridge apparently manages). There is mention of a couple of stagings, but I think what's there now in the Modern revivals subsection is plenty. I would say that if the additions persist, we should request semi-protection. At the very least, the IP would need to come here and request the addition along with an explanation of why, despite what we've said here, this particular production deserves mention. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello All, First off, sorry for reposting the section- I am new to the editing process of wikipedia, and I was only made aware of the ability to open a dialogue. Please Forgive me. The bread and puppet theatre company is the oldest self- sustaining puppet theatre company in America. The reason I believe that it is important to mention this under the modern revision section is because it marks a unique show where american/folk/and political aesthetics were incorporated into the the operatic form. Although Kentridge indeed used puppets, being a south African company- and therefore, in my opinion, still based in European aesthetics of object performance and imagery. Bread and Puppet deserves to be mentioned because of its particular style and influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmkelly87 (talkcontribs) 23:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Your contribution makes it clear that this material is well suited for the article Bread and Puppet Theater. It's not notable for the performance history of Monteverdi's opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox?Edit

{{Infobox opera 
| name              = ''Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria''
| genre_header      = [[Opera]]
| composer          = [[Claudio Monteverdi]]
| native_name       = 
| native_name_lang  = it
| image             = Head Odysseus MAR Sperlonga.jpg
| caption           = Head of [[Odysseus]] (Ulisse), from the [[Sperlonga sculptures]]
| librettist        = [[Giacomo Badoaro]]
| language          = Italian
| based_on          = [[Homer]]'s ''[[Odyssey]]'' 
| premiere_date     =  1639–1640 [[Carnival]] season,
| premiere_location = [[Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo]], [[Venice]]
}}

I suggest something like this, to let the operas by Monteverdi follow those by Verdi. An image more relevant to this opera would be better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that an infobox is necessary. The article has been a featured one for over five years, and hasn't needed one yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much a question of "need" as one of suitability; those collapsed identiboxes, or whatever they are called, are infoboxes for all practical purposes, except their content is that of a navbox, not an infobox. They really need to be swapped out. If there is a concern about a dramatic change, we could keep the composer's portrait. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec, sorry for some repetition:) {{Infobox opera}} was made available only in 2013. Compare FA Carmen, if GA Falstaff (opera) is not convincing. - Of course an infobox is not necessary, but a side navbox while there is a bottom navbox seems redundant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As best I can tell, it's a "Monteverdi operas" template dating back several years that includes the composer image and the (closed) links, and is used here and for L'Orfeo. (L'incoronazione di Poppea, though technically switched from this to an infobox back in 2014, is currently just an image of Poppea and a caption. If you want to get rid of the "Monteverdi operas" template, I suppose there are ways to go about it, but I don't see the need of an infobox in its place. Monteverdi, the first great opera composer, has no need to follow Verdi. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just because Monteverdi is the first great opera composer, doesn't make him immune from Gerda's ministrations. Just joking. I'd support a minimal infobox, although I'd like to hear the opinion of Brianboulton who almost single-handedly brought this to FA. However, the premiere date in the model box above is very misleading. It implies the opera premiered over two years when it did not. The premiere date should be "1639/1640 Carnival season". The Carnival season for opera goes from December to February, and in this case the month and day of the premiere are unknown. It's one of the limitations of trying to shove outliers into fixed parameters. I also think the "The Odyssey by Homer" would look much better and less cluttered on a single line. Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have adjusted the box contents in accordance with Voceditenore's suggestions, which I agree improves its appearance. The Monteverdi portrait has already been dumped from L'Arianna and L'incoronazione, in favour of boxes like this, so it's logical. All I ask is that the infobox warriors don't decide to disrupt the TFA date, 4 November (when I shall be in Rome, safely above the fray). Brianboulton (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all, taken to article, leaving only the code hear, to not distort the inclusion count, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Congratulations!Edit

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Modern revivalsEdit

I just removed the addition of the Les Arts Florissants revival in 2009: the sole source (of which there hadn't been any) was a 2008 announcement of L'Orfeo, which mentioned that Il ritorno was scheduled for 2009 and Poppea in 2010. There doesn't appear to be anything notable about this particular production; if there is, then it's certainly a candidate for restoration, so long as what made it notable is mentioned and sourced. I am also about to remove the Jonathan Cable edition, since it does not appear to be published (only available for rent, according to Cable's website), and therefore cannot be considered a "main published edition" per the "Editions" section description.

What strikes me about this section is that it mentions the more outre stagings or productions, but doesn't give space to ones that follow the score and libretti, or the ones considered the most effective or groundbreaking. That might be useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you BlueMoonset concerning the Cable edition. When I removed the assertion about Cable's score from the Performance history, I hadn't seen that it had also been added to the Editions section. There was quite a spamming expedition yesterday—adding this "information" to L'incoronazione di Poppea and L'Orfeo as well [1], [2]. I've gone back and removed it from the Editions section of L'incoronazione di Poppea. I hadn't added the mentions of the Les Arts Florissants Madrid "trilogy", just updated the reference (previously a dead link), but they should probably also go from L'incoronazione di Poppea and L'Orfeo, barring some reviews that demonstrate that there's anything particularly noteworthy or different about those productions. Having said that, this review in Opera News is quite favourable to the Florissantes/Pizzi production of L'incoronazione di Poppea and mentions both Cable and the changes he made to the score. I've used it as a reference in the Recordings section of L'incoronazione . Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria" page.