Talk:La sonnambula

Isn't this the primary subject?

This article is primary and should be called La sonnambula, not La sonnambula (Bellini). There are hundreds of other articles in which the opera (rather than a libretto) are regarded as primary. This is very well established on Wikipedia. --Kleinzach 10:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved back to its proper location by the WP:TROUTed editor who messed things up in the first place, after obvious discussion that the Bellini opera was the primary topic. -- Natalya 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

---

La sonnambula (Bellini) → La sonnambula – Requesting that this article be moved back over the redirect to its original title. This article has been at La sonnambula (with a redirect from La Sonnambula) since 2003. Yesterday it was moved to La sonnambula (Bellini) and its original title was made into a dismbiguation page based solely on this conversation on one user's talk page between that user and an adminstrator where it was decided unilaterally that the title had no primary topic. Similarly La Sonnambula now redirects to the dismbiguation page This move has broken well over 200 links to other articles and is definitely not an uncontroversial move. Nor is it uncontroversial that there is clearly no primary topic. I would argue that the opera is the primary title. The search term "La sonnambula" + opera has 1.5 million google hits [1]. The search term "La sonnambula"+ ballet has less than 500,000 [2] and many of these are still about the opera with mentions of related ballets and other works. Even more telling, look at what comes up in a simple search on "La sonnambula".[3]. Plus, the overwhelming majority of WP articles now linked to La sonnambula and La Sonnambula refer to Bellini's opera. In fact, virtually all of them. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support move – as proposer Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support and a WP:TROUT for the disputed move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support move and a double WP:TROUT for the mover. - --Kleinzach 11:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support move The opera is clearly the primary topic. The 200+ links prove this. --Folantin (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly support move - as per all of the above. (With extra WP:TROUT on the side).--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and definitely trout original mover. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and I totally deserve those trouts as the mover. Sorry guys, this was 100% my bad. It's been a little while since I've dealt with primary topic choice, and after the discussion, I thought to myself "hmm... I'm pretty sure that I forgot to do some really obvious things, like, oh, check to see what links to the page". I'm really sorry about that - I was not meaning to make your lives more difficult in any way. If I had known that it was a more controversial decision (or, you know, if I had actually bothered to look at the links to the page, and realized that most went to the Bellini opera), I would have brought it up for discussion to a related Wikiproject or a space for many people to comment on - not just leave it as a discussion between the initially involved editors. Anyway, 100% my bad, and I'm glad that things will get put back in the way that makes the most sense. Trout away. -- Natalya 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment So now we are stuck with a week of 200+ broken links. Since you acknowledge that the move was a mistake and not uncontroversial, will you please revert it? If anyone wants to dispute that the opera is the primary topic, they can do so under a proper requested move discussion, as they should have done in the first place. If you are not willing or able to do this today, I'll ask a another administrator to do it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• As described here, I am more than happy to move things back - I just thought it might not be my place, given that I was rather involved with the situation. That being said, if no one objects (anyone?), I will more things back right away. Let me know, and if no one minds, I will fix it ASAP. -- Natalya 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, please do move it back. I'll be happy to tidy things up afterwards. --GuillaumeTell 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed . . . . --Kleinzach 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• Done. I fixed the two double redirects that I found, as well as updated the link name on the disambiguation page. If there's anything else that I missed to do, please let me know. On the topic of the disambiguation page, I'm not going to change it because doing so was what got me into this mess in the first time, but technically, since the Bellini opera, at La sonnambula, is the primary topic, the link to it belongs at the top of the page, as described at MOS:DAB#Linking_to_a_primary_topic. You can read more there for more information and rational on this setup if you are interested. There had been some disagreement over whether this was a good setup for the page, so I will leave it up to you all who know about the topics. It is the proper formatting, technically, but of course, there are always times when it is best to WP:IAR. Anyway, thanks for your patience, and I am glad that I could fix the problem that I created. -- Natalya 22:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La sonnambula. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015205757/http://www.testament.co.uk/libretti/SBT1417libretto.pdf to http://www.testament.co.uk/libretti/SBT1417libretto.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)