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!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Everything I just put in is from the New Grove, with one exception: that Schikaneder played the role of Papageno in the premiere of The Magic Flute, which I extracted from my fallible memory. I'll try to find a real reference source for this claim.
Hello 131.130.135.193, This won't do - if you have better information than the New Grove, you have to add a citation of this source, and explain why it's better. Note in particular that nobody gets to edit Wikipedia just on their own personal authority; it's against the organization's policy. Opus3302:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Opus33, as an expert you will easiliy discover that none of the factual material was removed. There is no loss - quite the contrary, both the files - Ratisbon Theatre and the interior of Theater an der Wieden - also refer directly to the text; e.g. “the Theater an der Wien was "the most lavishly equipped and one of the largest theatres of its age".” Can't you be convinced that they not only enrichen the optical presentation of the page, but also deepen the understanding of its contents. Should the article on an impresario, dramatist, actor, singer and composer be without the interior of his theatres? Greetings from Ratisbon --Ratisbon (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Previous edits..."
As to the edit summary that stated, "Previous edits removed factual material without explanation; please discuss on Talk page before proceeding". This is incorrect. The previous edits included some rewording, but no "facutal material" was completely removed. Images were resized to a normal, reasonable size (as it was, they were essentailly gigantic and ridiculously too large in comparison to most articles of its type) and reordered somewhat within the article. As the article is now, it is no longer overshadowed by huge images (which, I might add, resizing them reduced a large amount of whitespace) and that makes it more readable and more "Wikipedia-like". This is supposed to be an enxcyclopedia, not a picture book. Comments? Questions? Bring them -- but please do not revert back without discussion first. Thanks. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
