Talk:List of operas by George Frideric Handel

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Voice Parts

So as not to have a /completely/ pointless edit, I'll go ahead and ask. Would it be possible to add a 'voice parts' column like in the respective Mozart article? I'm especially curious about which ones have chorus or not (the articles themselves don't always say, and especially with Baroque opera one can never be sure), and since this is supposed to be a comprehensive table, especially to distinguish it from the full Handel works list, it'd be a nice addition. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion about this and it was decided not to include a 'voice parts' column both because of space limitations and likely problems with content. (The List of operas by Mozart is unique in having one.) This particular table already has 7 columns. Having more will make it unusually wide. IMO this level of detail is best left to the individual opera articles, especially given that so many parts were originally for castrati and now performed by other voices. The opera article role tables certainly should include chorus, that's the norm, so they should be added if they are missing. --Klein zach 06:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation Melodia. I don't believe adding a 'voice parts' column would present problems that couldn't be overcome. One important idea of lists is to allow the reader to compare works—something that is very difficult to do if the information needs to accessed from dozens of other pages. I for one would like to be able to easily analyse how Handel evolved voicing—perhaps it might be of interest to other WP readers. The Mozart list page has more than seven columns, so there is no issue there (especially with the use of smaller fonts). Could the previous discussion about this please be referenced so that we can all delve a little deeper into the issues? Thanks. HWV258 21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Mozart table is actually rather problematic in this area: just taking Così as an example - is Dorabella a mezzo? Is Guglielmo a baritone or bass? What about Don Alfonso? Can't Despina be sung by a mezzo (Bartoli) or a soprano (Gueden)? I fear that Handel may be even more complicated. --GuillaumeTell 01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I fear" could be a good gut-feel, but I don't see it as a reason not to try. We can always reject after an attempt is made. To reject before an attempt is made due to fear strikes me as wrong. I don't include you in the "reject" category as I know there is nothing in your post that indicates that you wouldn't like to see an attempt made. HWV258 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems will include: when is a castrato part a castrato-soprano, a castrato-mezzo or a castrato-contralto?—eg Ariodante is much higher than Caesar, closer to a sop role but in modern day performances the role is usually taken by a mezzo, not a soprano—Is Bajazet really a tenor role? which are Bass roles, which are Baritone? You'll also have problems with what consistutes a chorus: in Tolomeo, for example, the "chorus" is nothing but the whole cast of soloists (I think including a dead character, though I may be getting confused)—in the MS the parts are labelled with the names of the singers, not the characters. almost-instinct 12:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly agree with Kleinzach and Almost-instinct that there are challenges in creating voice part lists, I also believe that these difficulties can be effectively overcome. In defense of the List of operas by Mozart, the voice parts are cited to reliable references. If we used published sources like on that list then I see no problem in creating a similar list here. Annotated notes at the bottom can be given for any possible ambiguity. See the notes section at the List of operas by Mozart to see how it handles castrati parts, etc. In terms of casting practices of individual opera houses, I don't think that necessarily has to be addressed. There are an inumerable amount of roles which have been done by more than one voice type and we simply can not be expected to note every one. (we certainly don't with any consistancy on individual opera pages throughout the encyclopedia) Merely reproducing voice parts lists from a published score or other authoratative reference is not only objective but would be useful for comparative purposes. Role tables always have to be taken with some flexibility. There will always be voices out there that can and do sing roles not associated with their particular fach.Nrswanson (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GuillaumeTell also had reservations about the idea. Frankly if we wanted to include a 'Voice part' column, a baroque composer like Handel would be the toughest place to start. I think this could be a waste of time when we have so many other important things to do. Anyway there's no consensus to go ahead with this. --Klein zach 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the List of operas by Mozart is a good example to illustrate the difficulties with voice parts. That list needs 11 footnotes for the column "Voice parts" for just 22 works. Among the works, Così fan tutte is particularly instructive: not one of the six soloists is described identically, the characterisation of Despina as "soubrette" taking the cake — all this in addition to the problems GuillaumeTell and Almost-instinct raised above. In my opinion, the list is correct, the article on the opera is unwarranted interpretation.

A different case is The Marriage of Figaro where the list includes the two servant girls as soloists — from what I've seen these are usually sung by courageous chorus members or members of "Young Artists" programmes in many houses; the score doesn't list them. In this case, I think the list is wrong and the article is right.

I consider the widespread use of a smaller font in exceedingly wide tables quite a strain. Overall, I think the addition of a "Voice parts" column for all Lists of operas by composer would be an unnecessary source of problems with no great gain. It's only my inherent lazyness and my tendency towards a "zero-revert rule" which prevented me from radically editing the Mozart list. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not specific ones, why not something general? I mean, number of lead rolls, if there are small rolls, if there's a chorus, and the accompaniment (which is usually orchestra, but it may be just strings, or whatever else). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you agree that would exceed the confines of a table? A table is by design a simplified, restricted, uniform presentation of selected categories. "Something general" should be presented in the main article. "Accompaniment"? I'm afraid even my 24" monitor won't be able to show even the smallest orchestration. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the voice parts section of the Mozart list is an excellent example for what not to do. Laughing at the distributions for the operas I do know left me very sceptical about the ones that were new to me. Entfuhrung seemed the only okay one! In any case there are terrible POV issues, and a general confusion between what was intended by composer and what operatic tradition has subsequently done. almost-instinct 13:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the specific orchestration, I'm talking about the general one. But fine, if you continue to not understand, I give up. But it is THAT hard at least for there to have a note if there's a chorus in the articles theselves at least? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the zero-revert rule" page: "If you can't figure out how any part of an edit benefits an article ask for clarification on the article's or the editor's discussion page". I agree with that, and duly note that we are reversing the process here. What is wrong with attempting to see how the information looks before trying to stop its inclusion? HWV258 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not concern ourselves with what can't be done; instead, let us find ways to do things. Remember that we are not constructing high-tech oil paintings here—instead, we have to remain focused on how we can impart information to readers of WP (whose reasons for visiting WP we shouldn't try to predetermine). There are a number of ways to render the information, so we shouldn't decide not to do it just because one (imagined) way of doing it might have some initial troubles. The voice parts idea is worth investigating, and we should not make "decisions" until we have seen the data. To that end, someone needs to collate the voice part information (perhaps on this talk page) in order for suggestions to emerge as to formatting. Melodia: fancy a trip to the local library; or should we divide up the work? If you can present to us the information you would like to see for one of the operas, I'm happy to help with the others. Even if the information doesn't make it into a table, at least it will be available for inclusion in the relevant articles. It was mentioned above that "there was discussion about this"—could that discussion please be referenced so we don't have to rediscover the issues involved? Thanks. HWV258 21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus against adding a 'Voice parts' column to this page. The reasons have been given. However, there is plenty of work to be done on the individual opera articles. If Melodia (or anyone else) wants to work on explaining how Handel assigned the roles originally and how that information is interpreted today (also the role of the chorus etc.) then that information will be most welcome - on the individual opera pages. A substantial amount of work will be required, of course, to make the information accurate. --Klein zach 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any such consensus. Could you please provide the link to the discussion? As I wrote, let's collect the information, analyse it, and then decide the best way to utilise it. That is a non-controversial, common-sense approach that I'm sure will be welcomed by everyone. HWV258 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion. Also note Wikipedia policy: "The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." (from here). --Klein zach 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your words ("There was discussion about this...") in your first post in this section are incorrect? Let's be clear about this: Melodia is keen to include the information, I'm keen to investigate how it could be included, and Nrswanson writes "that these difficulties can be effectively overcome"—exactly how do you reach the label of "consensus" for not even trying to include the information? (And how did you reach that conclusion without any discussion having taken place?) All I've seen so far are nebulous "reasons" that I know can be overcome with discussion, inventiveness, and some old-fashioned hard work. I have no idea how your quote ("The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.") is relevant—discussing the options for inclusion of the information is precisely the "justification" process we are keen to pursue here. Let's continue the investigation as to how we can enhance the experience of WP readers with Melodia's proposal. HWV258 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comments of GuillaumeTell, Almost-instinct, Michael Bednarek and myself above. --Klein zach 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and they don't indicate "consensus"—rather, just the start of healthy discussion. Could you please explain to us all how you knew those comments were going to eventuate when you wrote "There was discussion about this"? HWV258 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a prior discussion and I don't believe that there is consensus here either way. Roughly the same amount of editors are for voice type inclusion as there are against.Nrswanson (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GuillaumeTell, Michael Bednarek and I have had extensive conversations about these lists (there are about 40 of them!) on talk pages. The opinions have been restated here for everybody's convenience. What's the next totally irrelevant interrogation going to be about? Have HWV258 and Nrswanson ever read WP:AGF (subtitle: Civility, Maturity, Responsibility)? --Klein zach 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read it. It was precisely "good faith" that led me to simply ask you for a link to the discussions (something that still hasn't been provided). The fact that you took that request to be some sort of "interrogation" is your own problem. At last I feel we've reached an end to this "debate" now, so: onwards and upwards Melodia (and anyone else who wants to help make the page better for other WP readers). HWV258 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no—I'm not finished with the "interrogation" (aka "request"). I notice that you requested discussion with GuillaumeTell here and with Michael Bednarek here. Both those requests were made after your comment "There was discussion about this..." on this page. There is no response by either of those editors on their own talk pages, and neither has responded on your talk page since your request. So, I can only assume you are referring to previous "extensive conversations". Could you please provide links to the relevant edits (either on talk pages, or in archives) so that we can all bring ourselves up to speed with the intricacies of the "voice part" debate. (Apologies for not having been around at the time of the original discussions, but I'm sure you can see why it is important that we don't waste too much time rehashing debates that have already occurred). Thanks in advance for your help. HWV258 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'm not necessarily "for" the voice-type inclusion (yet)—I'm simply "for" encouraging an editor to increase the information at WP, and to see how that information might look. To Melodia: we don't really need anyone's permission to see how something might look, so I'll leave it up to you to provide an example that I can work with. HWV258 01:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To change the tack slightly: what third-part sources are we suggesting might be up to the task of describing the voice-part distibution? almost-instinct 23:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The job is opera by opera, going through the latest research, looking at critical editions. It's not trivial, and I think the work has to be done (and indeed should be done) on the level of the individual opera articles. --Klein zach 00:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a high level of scholarship required. Perhaps it would be best to wait until the information is accurately and properly presented in the individual opera articles before determining whether a feasible list could be presented here. However, I think its a bit premature to be saying its impossible to present that information effectively without even having the relevent data available to objectively look at. On a side note, some of Kleinzach's comments lead me to believe (I appologise in advance if I am wrong) that he is hoping to set a blanket policy stating "no voice types on all of the List of operas by composer articles", which is something I think should be avoided. I think these lists should be able to keep a certain level of flexibility while adhering to a certain uniformity as well.Nrswanson (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the 35 different lists you will see plenty of evidence of flexibility. Moreover the List of operas by Mozart does have a voice parts column. Each composer is a little different. The point that has been made by a series of editors here is that Handel is probably the most difficult to treat in this way. In the circumstances I'll take the apology and won't question too closely its sincerity. --Klein zach 23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am glad I am wrong and, not that it particularly matters, I have looked at most of the lists.Nrswanson (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tracked down a copy of the volumes of HWV at a library not too far away. I'll try to get there soon to see what I can discover. HWV258 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call for this page to be merged

I cannot think of one good reason that this page should remain as its own little island, somehow constructed as separate from Handel's other works. The current situation makes each incomplete; fractures the reader's impression of the great man's output; and is illogical, since the other genres have not been split apart from each other. I intend to proceed with a merger in about a week's time, unless a good reason is put forward. Tony (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One good reason is the considerable text content of List of operas by Handel which puts them into perspective and context. Another reason is that there's no "fracturing of experience" on the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel - it's there too. Another reason is that sometimes it's a good thing to fracture experience. Some readers may be primarily interested in his operas and here they have them all on one page with contextualization and without acres of tables with data they are not primarily interested in. These arguments and others were made in greater detail by several editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of operas by Handel where the consensus was keep rather than delete or merge. This is just an opinion. Apart from having made a few minor corrections to this list, I don't have anything personally invested here. Voceditenore (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy these arguments. Just how are his operas different in terms of musical style from his oratorios? I don't think I want to bounce between two pages to see both genres listed. Why should others? What exactly are the disadvantages in merging them? Tony (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is fine as it is, as it expands on the works list. Which is one reason I think there should be a bit more info (as I said above). Other composers DO have issues where the operas (or piano pieces, or possibly other things) are seperate, but with Handel it's not a problem. I can't disagree that the oratorios should also probably have their own page too, but the opera project likes to work on their own thing and not care about other genres. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's chop up the whole genre: little bits here and everywhere. Tony (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the big deal here. The full list is over 600 works long. Its pretty rare when lists that long don't get split. For example, most other HWV pages are split (e.g. [1]). Especially when its already broken into sub-tables. Its not like its a single table that you can sort by composition date. Frankly, looking at parent page, it was just begging to get split. Your argument about "why operas are different" doesn't hold water. Things on wikipedia get developed unevenly based on editor interest. If we have to wait for all 25 subsections to get expanded before we can expand one of them, then nothing would ever get done. DavidRF (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head with the example you gave ([2]). That site doesn't attempt to tabulate the information so there was no reason to put it all on one page. In addition, there are notes and much other information on those pages that would make a combining very lengthy. If all the information on those pages were saved into one file, it would be 280 kb (and that's just raw text with no formatting codes such as bold and italics). On the other hand, the List of compositions by Handel page has dispensed with much of the notes (as well as the HG and HHA information). As a result, it has been possible to provide the reader of the List of compositions by Handel page with much consistency across genres, as well as to retain a sense of the scale of the works by Handel.
When you say "most", that sounds like the results of a statistical survey, however even if you could compare the two examples mentioned so far (which I don't believe is fair), that's still only fifty-fifty. HWV258 22:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you've selected the breadth of data so to "fit" all 600 works on one page. There certainly is a bonus in doing that, but it eliminates the possibility of expansion. The solution for other composers is often just two lists. For Mozart, its Köchel catalogue for all-on-one-page and List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for more depth and forked child articles. For Handel it *could* be the same way since we already have two articles: Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis and List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. If I was *really* bold, I might consider putting the full all-on-one-page-list on the HWV page and letting the "list of comps" page be more categorized, expandable and open for child-page expansion. The all-on-one-page list could even have its tables unified so that you could sort all by date or place. I'm just brainstorming, though. My impression is that you don't want any major changes. :-) DavidRF (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of issues here:

I'm not sure about expanding the current HWV page as it is really about a book published in three-volumes. As I've mentioned, I added the HWV number summary table to that page, but didn't actually expect it to survive this long. If I hadn't added that table on a whim, no one would really think about expanding that page.
In terms of lists for other composers at WP, I'll only add one thing: I'd confidently say that the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page is the best of all the ones I've seen (by far). Instead of trying to conform with (often) inferior pages, perhaps we should be looking to set the standard to which they can aspire.
I am in favour of a new (additional) page that has a much simplified single list that allows the sorting of all of Handel's works (the all-on-one-page concept mentioned above). That would allow the sorting of all of the works by key or composition date, etc. I have been itching to make that page as an example for community comment, but have held off until more of the blanks have been filled in on the current list page.
I admit that "expansion" is a concern. It's just that (especially compared to the state of the list page before I started to build it out) it doesn't seem to evolve much at all. Perhaps we should get a feel for what sort of expansions are requested before reorganising things in anticipation of expansion?

In terms of "My impression is that you don't want any major changes"—perhaps. I'll only say that I've been burnt by one incident and would dearly like to see future changes put up for discussion in front of the community. I will say that I find your comments here to be lucid, and I personally welcome the chance to discuss some different ideas—thank you.
HWV258 02:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tony1: You don't have to bounce back and forth. The operas are on the complete composition page too. That was the point of keeping both articles in their present form as complimentary but different reading experiences.

Reply to ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫: I'm not sure what "the opera project likes to work on their own thing and not care about other genres" is supposed to mean. The editor who created this article left the Opera project two months before creating it and is currently a member of both the Composers project and the Classical music project. In any case, is there anything wrong with projects sticking to their own areas of expertise and interest? There's nothing to stop anyone from any of these three projects (or none of them) from creating a separate Handel oratorio list if they feel it would be worthwhile. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tony1: See Wikipedia:Splitting: "If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out." Both reasons (i.e. length and balance) apply in this case, however note that in many other ones, I have not split off the lists of operas etc. See for example Joseph-Nicolas-Pancrace_Royer#Operas. --Klein zach 12:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the threshold in this case, beyond which the Handel list is too long? Why is "balance" an issue? Tony (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1: See Wikipedia:Splitting: "A guideline for article size is: . . . > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided". The List of compositions is 109 K, even without the full list of operas.--Klein zach 00:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that would have exactly what to do with "balance"?
Please have a read of the points listed here as to why a list page in general (and the List of compositions by Handel page in particular) do not fit as neatly into the above quote as you purport to believe. I, and I suspect everyone reading this, just can't figure out why it is that you can't make a distinction between "article" and "list page". From Article size: "For stylistic purposes, only the main body prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose". I'd really like to knock this argument on the head once and for all. So—please note that you also thought that the page should be split when it was only 85 kb. As you are well aware, there is a difference between the size of the raw text (and formatting codes) when being edited, and the size of the page when rendered to the viewer. The increase from 85 kb to 109 kb was solely to do with my inclusion of a whole heap of date sorting codes—none of which made the slightest difference to the physical length of the page. Please let that be the end to such arguments.
If your real problem is the length of the page, why are you starting with the removal of only the third-longest table on the Handel list page? (And I'm still keen to learn more about the concept of "balance".) HWV258 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the length of the List of compositions by Handel page is not an issue have been detailed here.
I can't begin to imagine what "balance" has to do with things. Perhaps you could support your point (remembering that the list of operas is the third-longest list on the page)? HWV258 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To HWV258: Please re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of operas by Handel, the discussion regarding your Afd proposal to delete this page. I don't think anything can be gained by re-running this.--Klein zach 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this section, and I'm not calling for the deletion of this page. That said, I do have some thoughts on the topic of the future direction of this page—which I'll post below at a later stage. HWV258 02:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to know what "balance" is in this case, and why it's relevant. "List of works by Handel" is now a lie, having been gutted of a major genre of his works. This is a category problem. It's as though that article should be renamed "List of non-operatic works by Handel". This is a bad precedent. Length: well, that "rule" is very hard to enforce, as witnessed at FAC, where we just gave up—there's no clear boundary, and often nominators come up with rather good reasons that their article needs to be that long, or even longer. When in tabular form, with a sequence of well-arranged tables, I can't see what the issue is. The ToC is there for easy access to all. And I'm concerned to know why the very good information in the lead and images here can't be integrated into the full list/article for the benefit of our readers. BTW, whatever went on at the deletion page appears irrelevant now; I wasn't around for that, and all I see now is unresolved issues. We need to deal with them as we see them now. I'm also concerned about the precedent that is being set for composer lists (and articles) more broadly; do we really need to seequester opera into separate locations all over the place? My musical expertise (yes, I do have that, and I rarely claim it) tells me that an integrated approach is far more suitable for an encyclopedic resource, especially in relation to stylistic development. Operatic and non-operatic genres feed off each other, even in the baroque. I do hope the Classical period hasn't been dealt with in this way, since there it would significantly damage the synoptic view.Tony (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1: please compare the List of Compositions in October (before I started work on the operas) and now, here: [3]. I'm sure you'll agree that "gutted" is hardly appropriate. --Klein zach 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what is being argued about here, any more. /Handel/ as it stands it fine, if not ideal -- the works list is complete on its page, and there's a specific, detailed, list for operas that gives more info than would be feasible on the works page. Mozart does this too. Some composers DO have the opera (or piano pieces) split off, as I mentioned above, and that shouldn't be. But THIS page is perfectly fine as it is, and I'm not sure why it's still an issue after this answer was given. The only possible thing would be that perhaps there should be an oratorio page as well. Have you even LOOKED at the Handel page? The operas are there.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not transcluded, so of course they'll gradually drift apart. Can someone fix? Tony (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are my thoughts regarding this page:

I feel that (in principle) it is okay to have genre pages, e.g. operas (as in this page), oratorios, keyboard works, etc., as it can be useful to bring out specific information on how Handel's operas developed or are structured, or other information that is considered too esoteric for a parent page. Unfortunately, there is precious little of that on this current page, so I can see why it's existence is questioned. It would be useful for someone to delve through some sources in order to add to this page because as it stands, there is nothing that couldn't be simply moved back to an "operas" section on the main Handel page. In other words, currently, this is just fractured information for little or no benefit.
I don't believe the list of operas on this page is useful. The natural place for the information is on the List of compositions by Handel page—something for which ample arguments have already been presented. The little that the list on this page offers in addition to the "List of compositions by Handel" page could easily be moved back there in additional columns or notes.

HWV258 05:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HWV258: "I'm not calling for the deletion of this page [above] . . . there is nothing that couldn't be simply moved back to an "operas" section on the main Handel page. In other words, currently, this is just fractured information for little or no benefit [below]". So which is it? Are you once again recommending the removal of this page, or not? Do you want to consolidate all the information on one enormous 'Handel United' page? --Klein zach 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite clearly stated my thoughts. Perhaps you could have a go at addressing them. HWV258 06:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have refrained from joining this discussion up until now. As I have stated repeatedly, this list has a lot of potential to be useful if editors choose to expound upon the lead. Rather then merely keep saying this over and over, I decided to just go ahead and do it. I think we now have an article that everyone will agree is worthy of its own page. Obviously there is still room for improvement. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLC?

OK, if it's going to stay separate, so be it. In that case, I have to say that serious consideration should be given to preparing this list as a nomination for featured status. It is of high quality, I think. Preparation would reequire a check-list related to the featured list criteria, I guess.

What do people think of this idea? Tony (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this list is a quality list, it is still pretty far away from passing an FLC. For one, as the author of the prose section I can tell you that I used only opera dictionaries as sources (see bibliography) and a Featured List would require multiple tertiary sources. Second, the article would need in-line citations. Third, a section on the article's basis for inclusion still needs to be written. Finally, I don't think this list is currently in a stable state. We have an on going discussion as to whether or not to include a voice types/orchestration section, and we have not handeled the borderline works like Acis and Galatea and Semele. I think its a little too early to be talking about taking this to FLC. At least wait until the list is stable (i.e. all controversies settled).Nrswanson (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be realistic. This list is a reflection of 1980s scholarship (as interpreted by Hicks in Grove). It needs to be updated to include recent research. It also needs to be developed together with the 46 articles on the individual operas — which will be of more interest to the general reader than this list. The 46 articles were originally a series of (mostly) minimal one-line stubs. Thanks to some strenuous work by Opera Project editors they are now all at 'Start' level (with one GA, Agrippina). However many of them need further development with better synopses, critical appreciation sections, analyses of the music, recent performance histories, recordings etc. (Any volunteers?) Finally GuillaumeTell, one of the most reliable of the opera editors — who has been checking the other lists after Michael Bednarek and I have finished our basic work, organizing the content and designing the tables — has yet to look at this one. I hope he will be given time to do so, and there will be no further time-consuming harassment of those who choose to work on this article. Up to now more time has been spent here on the talk page than the article. This must stop. --Klein zach 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of these continual snipes—simply because someone has dared to stand up to some of the unilateral edits and decisions that happen in this neck of the woods. If you want "harassment" to stop, then you should consider being more flexible, engaging in discussion before significant change, and addressing the exact points that are put to you. We will all have a much happier time in the future if you do. Incidentally, I utterly reject your pejorative use of the word harassment (and you would do well to more carefully consider your choice of words in the future as this is all part of a permanent record). Your use of that word says plenty to all at this page about the way you perceive the WP world. HWV258 23:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys quit it! It might be time to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. There is no need to escalate this situation un-necessarily. I think Kleinzach brings up a highly relevent point about the need for modern scholarship (which is something I was hinting at with my comment on tertiary sources). As for improving the opera articles for Handel, we are going to be doing just that for the month of March at the opera project. I invite you all to join in that discussion here and participate in this next month's collaboration which also involves working on improving Handel's biography.Nrswanson (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment about the parts concerning "modern scholarship". I did comment on the part of the post that was needlessly tacked-on in order to try and demonstrate some sort of point. HWV258 00:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acis & Galatea

Is there a reason why Acis and Galatea has been omitted from this page? If this endeavours to be a complete list of Handel's operas, shouldn't it be here? Sibruk (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not considered to be an opera (well, not in the same league as the other works on this page). See List of compositions by George Frideric Handel#Odes and masques. GFHandel ♬ 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be added into the introduction, which currently draws reference to Semele? Is this work not equally important? What do you think?

Though almost all of his English language works are technically oratorios and not operas, several of them, such as { Acis and Galatea (1718) and } Semele (1743), have become an important part of the opera repertoire.

Sibruk (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be bold and add it. A reference that Acis and Galatea is "an important part of the opera repertoire" would help your case (and yes, I'm aware that there isn't a reference for the same statement applying to Semele—but that doesn't mean you shouldn't find one for Acis). GFHandel ♬ 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of operas by Handel. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced introduction full of incorrect information and dubious value judgements

I haven't looked at this list before, came here to test the new captions for opera projects. Looking at the introduction reminds me why I have spent years re-writing and trying to improve the articles on Handel operas and oratorios. Why does a "list" article need an "overview" at all? If you look at List of operas by Gioachino Rossini or List of compositions by Giuseppe Verdi, they are just lists, no "overview". The introduction and "overview" are completely uncited, no sources given at all, and according to WP:UNSOURCED Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. The intro says He began composing operas in Germany and then for a brief time in Italy to modest success - as our article on Agrippina (opera), written for Italy, says, it was not a "modest success", it was extremely popular and established Handel's international reputation. Its original run of 27 performances was extraordinary for that time. Then we read the extraordinary statement Handel's place as the central figure of opera in England during the eighteenth century was not solidified until, under the influence of Thomas Arne, he began composing large-scale works with English language texts - what? where in the world does that come from? Esther (Handel) generally acknowledged to be the first English oratorio explains how that came about and it was nothing to do with Thomas Arne, how ridiculous. Then in the "overview" it says Handel's music for his first operas in England was often derived from musical ideas and idioms found in his cantatas and other works written during his time spent in Italy (1706–09). For example, the characteristic harmonic structure of Agrippina (1709) is obviously a retention of material from this Italian period- excuse me, whoever wrote this, if you had looked at the article on Agrippina (opera), you would see that it was written for Italy, not England!! goes on The two major sopranos at the Academy, Francesca Cuzzoni and Faustina Bordoni, were intensely competitive, and Handel had to cater to them both equally in these latter Academy operas. With the exception of Admeto (1727), the attempt at balancing two leading soprano roles within an individual opera proved to hinder the work both musically and dramatically. - highly highly dubious opinion of somebody without saying whose it is. And it was really the "fans" of Cuzzoni and Faustina that were intensely competitive more than the two divas. Handel's last Italian opera, Deidamia, was produced in 1741 and was not received very well as England's taste for Italian opera had waned - another dubious and unsourced statement. Italian opera in London continued to be performed. I am removing all of that text and just leaving the list.Smeat75 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]