Talk:List of prominent operas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Famous Operas)
Former featured listList of prominent operas is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 29, 2006Articles for deletionKept
February 22, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
March 14, 2019Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Somebody Help[edit]

I have no idea why, but all operas between "1893" and "1898" are randomly invisible. They're written, but they don't show up on the page. This is very frustrating, and it means "La Boheme" is missing. Somebody help! --Thepinterpause (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody didn't close some reference tags properly when using named refs, tags need to have /> at the end, or anything up tot he next closing tag is treated as being part of the reference (and only the text of the first occurence is actually shown. David Underdown (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some operas in the late 1700s are also missing. The culprit appears to be this edit: [1]. For instance, Don Giovanni is no longer in the list... ugen64 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing - I think I've caught them all now. David Underdown (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why only to 1991?[edit]

Why only to 1991? Please take some references from really new sources like "Mille et un opéras" (Kaminski, 2003). I can't imagine a list of most important operas without "Licht" (1981-2004) by Stockhausen. I think now that Boesmans with his new operas (Julie, Yvonne) is also noteworthy. Or Eotvos for example. --91.196.28.168 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not based on individual opinions of what is important, but was compiled using these criteria, which are quite specific. Additions require mention in 5 reference works. It would be worthwhile finding 4 more recent reference works in addition to Kaminski (2003) in order to add later operas. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this approach of only using a set of books is that there is no way that major breakthrough composers can get on this list no matter how they are heralded. I am thinking of George Benjamin (composer), whose opera, Written on Skin, has been staged 8 times already in the 12 months since its premiere and has been claimed by some critics as the best opera written in the last 10 years [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.126.196 (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fabermusic.com/Composers-Details.aspx?composerid=47

Barber of Seville?[edit]

Not important enough? 184.151.63.252 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed here under its Italian title, Il barbiere di Siviglia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables?[edit]

1985, Les Misérables (Claude-Michel Schönberg)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.177.97 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables is a musical, not an opera. Voceditenore (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orff Carmina Burana[edit]

Just have found my connection to classical music, but somehow i feel like this list is missing Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana".

Maybe there's a reason i don't know why it's no in here. Maybe i should be. Would enjoy some educated answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.234.59 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. While Carmina Burana requires operatically trained voices to sing it (especially for the soloists) and is occasionally performed in costume with scenic effects (although increasingly rarely), it isn't really an opera. Its composer called it a "scenic cantata". It's basically a series of poems set to music and grouped by related themes. Also, this list has specific criteria for inclusion: It's determined by a work's presence on a majority of compiled lists of significant operas. The "Lists Consulted" section has full details on how inclusion was worked out. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→ Thx, you answered all my questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.234.59 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Venus and Adonis[edit]

I would like to add John Blow's Venus and Adonis to the list of "Significant firsts in opera history", it being considered the first English Language opera. This seems reasonable, given that the first French and German operas are present, and the work's significant influence on Purcell. Sound reasonable? Roadrunnertwice (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Gilbert-Sullivan?[edit]

Why there is no Gilbert and Sullivan operas? They're one of the most famous collaboration in music history. I tried to add their operas to the list but they were erased every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Modernssohn (talk • contribs) 04:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent policy on operetta inclusion[edit]

I am keen to know if there is a consistent policy on including operettas. I see that Die Fledermaus and The Merry Widow are included in an opera list, but not the Gilbert & Sullivan operettas.

Die Fledermaus at least is regularly performed by major opera companies.Zagraniczniak (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan is also regularly performed by major opera companies, though? Certainly based on the English speaking world, but off hand I can recall Opera Australia doing a Mikado and I saw ENO have something on this season (2019-20)

(Beyondheat (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Lully founded French opera, but not a single entry on the referenced lists.[edit]

Lully was hugely influential in the history of opera, but seems to have been forgotten by all of the list compilers. It seems that disqualifies him from the main list, but he really should be included. Cadmus et Hermione established the form tragédie en musique, put French opera on the map, and began a century of Lully's influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwanasonic (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- English language POV is pretty obvious by this exclusion, esp. in how much he influenced so many of the following operas, and he is performed much more often than other later notices. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To qualify for this particular list, there are conditions. It's historic, yes, it's thus bias, there have been discussions how to name it to clarify that but not successful. Perhaps make a different other list that really deserves this name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Delius' A Village Romeo and Juliet (1907) be removed from the list?[edit]

The article on A Village Romeo and Juliet (1907) says it's rarely performed as an opera (its US premiere was only in 1972, for example). Only one interlude from it features regularly in concerts, "The Walk to the Paradise Garden". Is it OK to remove it? OsFish (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sole criterion for inclusion on this list is found here. If A Village Romeo and Juliet is found in at least five of those sources, then it belongs on the list. If not, then it should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of those lists is a way of operationalising the criterion of "importance", but is there no space for considering individual cases where the lists produce an opera that isn't recognisably "important" (such as it's very rarely performed)? OsFish (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the archived discussions of this talk page, particularly from Archive 3 onward. They are almost entirely to do with this very question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's very helpful. I'll have a browse.OsFish (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to List of prominent operas. The current title is absurd, and honestly so is the title I'm moving this to, and it makes me think that a list of operas with such subjective inclusion criteria shouldn't even exist on Wikipedia. List of operas by date would be reasonable, but it might as well be List of operas, since the very reason this list exists is to have subjective criteria. "Prominent" at least should be more verifiable than "important" (maybe an opera is important in your opinion, maybe it's not, but if it doesn't show up in Google Books, it's probably not prominent). Honestly, WP:AFD should probably be summoned here, but as for WP:RM, since almost nobody likes the current title for very good reasons, I have to semi-arbitrarily pick one, and the late entry is the winner. (You wouldn't have guessed this result from the first several responses, but it's never over till the fat lady sings.) (non-admin closure) Red Slash 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of important operas → ? – The word "important" is vague, undefined, and based on opinion. There has to be another option for naming this page, such as List of operas performed today ... but then "today" is subject to change. I'm not sure what title to use, but the title has to at least be a phrase that is not based on opinion or a timeframe that is subject to change almost immediately. Steel1943 (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to List of operas by date since that's how the article is ordered. The actual selection criteria ("important") don't need to be spelled in the title; otherwise many/most of our list articles would be "List of important X". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of operas by date as the objective, and thus far superior, title. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a move to "List of operas by date" because that's not what it is. It's inclusion criteria ought to be clear from its name. Doing otherwise will invite contributions (fan cruft) that will pollute the concept of this list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. List of operas by date would be a completely different article. Please see the second paragraph. The whole point of the article is to list the operas included in a majority of standard reference works -- the core repertory -- not thousands of operas from all time. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless a better title can be found, - "by date" is nonsense, even "by year" would be wrong because then anybody could add any opera which is exactly what is not intended (and which year anyway, composition, publication, performance??) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and "performed today" or tomorrow is not true for all of these, - some are just of historic interest, even if if opera were played these days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's simply not true that the selection criteria would be changed to "anyone could add anything". Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#List naming: "Additionally, an overly precise list title can be less useful and can make the list difficult to find; the precise inclusion criteria for the list should be spelled out in the lead section (see below), not the title." The lead is where the selection criteria is and where it stays. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of major operas would sound better, otherwise oppose. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of prominent operas. I oppose "List of operas by date" as that is insufficient to limit the scope of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: FWIW, I also oppose List of operas by date because that's clearly not the scope of this article in its current state. I also weak oppose List of major operas and List of prominent operas since the use of "major" or "prominent" seems a bit like buzzwords, but if I had to choose between the two aforementioned titles, I'd probably go with "List of prominent operas" because the use of the word "prominent" seems to fall more in line with the scope of the article, and is less buzzword-y than "major" in the case. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to List of prominent operas; Oppose List of operas by date. I see Prominent as better defined to representing a more universal view, whereas "important" seems to be a more individual opinion of what is important and what is not. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose List of operas by date as that doesn't describe the content well. Oppose List of prominent operas as I don't see that as being any better than "important" as a way of expressing the inclusion criteria. I would have suggested List of notable operas, give that the criteria are certain books mentioning them, but that page already exists for a different purpose. OsFish (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move[edit]

What happened to the principle: no consensus -> no action? How can a name that was was supported and opposed by two users be the outcome? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, explained to the one who closed, and expected the close to be reverted. Will you please file close review? Or should we give them one more chance to undo? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this should have been relisted since it hadn't been yet. Also, the closing statement reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Steel1943 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all above. This is nowhere near consensus to move. Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say if this lasts for another few hours, this should probably be posted on WP:MRV. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so here is another few hours later. Closure was not only premature, but completely unwarrented. This is just my personal opinion, of course but, like the closer's statement, ought to be counted as a WP:SUPERVOTE, because I do know what I am talking about.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-instated the status quo. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...And I've reverted that since reverting the move goes against policy since a WP:MRV was never filed. I'll try to get it filed here in a bit. Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move review filed: See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 August#List of prominent operas. Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you think after we had an out-of-process move, we need to waste time in process? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Well, it's not necessarily a time waste since WP:MRV allows editors who were not part of the discussion have the review solicited for uninvolved third-party opinion ... which helps ensure the revert gets proper exposure to uninvolved parties before it occurs, and to make sure there is nothing the involved editors missed or were mistaken about. (I've seen it happen before ... though I really don't think it will happen in this case, but one never knows for 100% certainty.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of notable operas which currently is a suboptimal redirect to Lists of operas[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus a simple counting of !votes shows that there is no consensus to move, however the arguments offered by the opposers are particularly convincing in that "notable" has a vague meaning in general use and on wiki has a specific meaning that would see every opera article listed here. Calidum also correctly notes that the "prominent" is also a word to avoid in titles according to WP:LISTNAME, meaning that this is not firm enough for me to say that there is a consensus against moving. "Great operas" has been suggested as an alternative and it, or another name with some basis in reliable sources, might usefully be the basis of a further RM discussion to establish a consensus on it, particularly referencing WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME.(non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


List of prominent operas → List of notable operas – Per the following:

The move review has been closed as no consensus and a suggestion that "Someone please propose a better name and let's have a restart"

I would like to suggest List of notable operas. This is a recently edited redirect that currently directs to Lists of operas ie, it's kind of going spare as that's not a great redirect. The challenge in naming this page is how to describe it in accordance with its inclusion criteria. It seems to me that being mentioned in a certain number of specific reliable sources is almost definitionally, a sign of notability. It also does not try to second-guess the inclusion criteria for these sources with words like "prominent" or "important".

What do you think?OsFish

...Which I support. Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've hidden OsFish's signature time stamp from the above comment since it breaks RMCD bot from posting this discussion properly. Steel1943 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OsFish: If you want to make that an official move request, I'll gladly format it as so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: please do - I have no idea how to do that and not much time right now to learn! OsFish (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @OsFish: ...Already did it a few days ago! :) Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "notable" is a better description than "prominent". Many operas listed overleaf are far from prominent, i.e. they are not widely known or even performed, but they all represent some kind of notable event in the development of the form (which was the meaning of the previous "important" – but suggesting to return there would mean inviting dramah). In ictu oculi suggested above List of major operas, but I don't think that describes the list very well. So, at this stage, until some other unexpected brilliant term is suggested, I would support "notable". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "notable", per Michael, much better than "prominent", and better than "important" or nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support, even prefer, "significant" as suggested below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "notable" there are significant notable operas which were lost or never performed. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support "notable". English seems not to have a word with the perfect degree of precision I'm looking for, but "notable" is pretty good. Also we have some precedent -- Wikipedia has lots of Lists of Notables, e.g. List of notable cats, List of notable cranks, List of Notable Bigfoot sightings, etc. etc. Antandrus (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • oops, I take part of that back. We might run into trouble. Turns out the "list of notable..." articles that show up in the search box are almost all redirects. There might be a history here (for example, "hey -- anything on Wikipedia is notable by default, so the word is redundant, let's redirect all of those to simpler titles, like List of Bigfoot sightings"). But there are some: List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. Antandrus (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might be thinking of WP:LISTNAME, which generally discourages words like "notable", but it's only a guideline, and like all guidelines allows for occasional exceptions. Station1 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • List of cats is of course not a list of all cats, but says "List of famous cats" in the article, so I believe a list title without some qualifier would be misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Which operas are "notable" seems like a more subjective standard to me than which operas are "prominent". Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you familiar with the well-defined criteria for this list, which are criteria of notability, not of prominence (whatever that may mean)? Are you familiar with the history, that "prominent" was the personal choice of the one who closed the previous discussion, without consensus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something I raised in the RM: arguments in favour of this or that preferred name that are made based on the premise that these criteria don't exist are problematic. OsFish (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Notable" is a vague term in "real life", and on Wikipedia it means something specific. I notice how no one has suggested List of significant operas (the lead talks of these as significant), so let me throw that out there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. All of the operas which have articles on Wikipedia have by definition been assessed as "notable", or they wouldn't have Wikipedia articles. This List article does not purport to list every single opera article on Wikipedia. It is a much much more selective list which narrows the field to prominent operas -- specifically "all operas regularly performed today", as it says in the lead sentence -- not merely those which have Wikipedia articles. Softlavender (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, these aren't exclusively operas regularly performed today. The list includes those operas, but is not limited to them.OsFish (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OsFish, that's mostly what it is, per the lead sentence. The criterion for inclusion on this list is found here. It's certainly not a list of "notable operas" which would be thousands of operas, including all the ones that currently have articles on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Includes" doesn't mean "mainly includes". The periodic table includes all noble gases, for example. Of course, one could argue that the inclusion criteria fail the lead, and should change, but that would be opening another can of worms.OsFish (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can prove incontrovertibly that most of the operas in this list are not performed regularly, then do so. Aside from the "Significant firsts", there are 313 operas in this list. If you can prove incontrovertibly that at least 150 of them are not performed and/or recorded regularly, then do so. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Late to this: the lead says "includes all regularly performed". The list doesn't end there, so a title with a focus on that aspect would be misleading. At a glance: The first Bellini, Beatrice di Tenda, is significant for treatment of the chorus, and Genoveva because by Schumann, but both not regularly performed, and also not prominent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, both of those operas are regularly performed and/or recorded, Gerda Arendt. --Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    depends on how "regularly" is defined (and many are recorded to make available what is performed rarely - and says so) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing "regularly performed" with "standard repertoire", and confusing "regularly" with "often". Those two operas are not standard repertoire (which is only about 100 operas or so), but they are regularly performed. A simple Google search will confirm that. Here are some 2019/2020 performances of Beatrice di Tenda: [2], [3], [4], [5]; more this decade: [6], [7]; I didn't get them all so this is only a sampling. Here are some 2019/2020/2021 performances of Genoveva: [8], [9]; more this decade: [10], [11], [12]; I didn't get them all because this was just a partial search. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My concept of "regularly" is different (ten worldwide in a decade is not what I'd call "regularly" performed) but so be it. I'd oppose any title with such an ambiguous term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. and support 1st) List of grand operas or 2nd) List of great operas per the sources. Notability has a different meaning to Wikipedians, and so calling these "notable operas" without including every single opera that has an article page on Wikipedia would be profoundly confusing. To quote from the recent Move review... "'What is wrong with using the sources?' Nothing. What is wrong is filtering those lists five or more times on nine sources, that is an arbitrary WP:SYNTH for 'important' or 'prominent'. If the sources call them 'grand operas' and 'great operas', then so should Wikipedia." --SmokeyJoe – P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 16:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grand opera has a specific meaning, unrelated to the list here under discussion. While "great operas" has some support in the consulted sources, I suggest the term in general is too vague and doesn't describe many of the works listed here. Most published lists of "great operas" concentrate on regularly performed works in the repertoire. In this list, most works appear because they are "important" in the history of the genre, which brings us back to where we started. I still think that "List of important operas" was a fitting moniker, and that the closing of the previous requested move was wrong, but if we can't go back there, "notable" is IMO the next-best term, not because they themselves are (that's a given), but because they signify notable events in opera history. I would also support Finnusertop's suggestion of "significant". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Softlavender. The scope of the list is clear "all operas regularly performed today" – prominent means exactly this. The fact that a "Significant firsts in opera history" section exists is because these operas are not prominent but notable. So in changing to Notable this section would have to be merged into the list above, which would effectively change the scope of the list. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    see reply above, the scope is clearly broader that the described subset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not, as I demonstrated in my replies to you there. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Notable" is a Wikipedia term of art, that has a completely different meaning outside of WP. Its use is specifically proscribed in the guideline for titling list articles, and there is only a single list article in all of WP that uses the term. We should not double that number. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – How about list of operas? cookie monster (2020) 755 21:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without some kind of qualifier, that would imply that it is a list of all operas, which it clearly is not. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was tempted to close this as not moved because of WP:LISTNAME and its suggestion to avoid "notable" in the titles of lists. After reading the guideline, however, I have to note "prominent" is also mentioned as a term to avoid. -- Calidum 02:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: Can you think of a better adjective to use? This request has been open for a month now and I see no signs of consensus forming. This discussion should just be closed as no consensus. If someone comes up with a better title idea, they can try again later with another move request. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"significant" was suggested, and found some supporters, and would be better than "prominent" which nobody likes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody likes "prominent"? I like it just fine actually. Regardless, there clearly isn't consensus for changing the title to "notable" in this discussion. I suggest the current discussion be closed, and if people think there could be enough support for "significant" over "prominent", then a new requested move discussion can be started. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus for the previous move either, and it was moved anyway, based on 2 supporting !votes. That's why we're here. Maybe a similar miracle happens again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: I just saw your message now. Unfortunately this isn't my area of expertise, so I don't have an alternative suggestion. -- Calidum 22:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, it is the core operatic repertory. Or "central" operatic repertory (a term used in Grove). We could call it that. It is what it is, so to speak. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great operas. Use the criteria at List of prominent_operas#Lists consulted. Include every opera included in any of the nine lists. Make it a sortable table, alphabetical by title, by composer, by year, and by the number of occurrences in the nine lists. As a table, the redundant “list of” is also inaccurate and should be dropped. Sortable makes it very usefully navigatable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of prominent operas → Select operas – Suggest this as possibly the best and most descriptive title for this grouping of operas. The current title appears to be unacceptable, along with words like "important", "notable" and "grand" to describe these operas. Even the most common term in sources, "great operas", has its inherent problems. So I propose we use the term "select operas" to describe operas which are still selected today by opera-loving audiences. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Paine Ellsworth, I see your point, but find it hard to agree. As mentioned in the previous RM, "Great operas" occurs in reliable sources, I don't think it controversial that these many operas are labelled "great". "Select" sounds like a third tier quality rating, and in other moments sounds like you meant "selected". Does "Select operas" have any basis in sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While "great operas" has some support in the consulted sources, I suggest the term in general is too vague and doesn't describe many of the works listed here. Most published lists of "great operas" concentrate on regularly performed works in the repertoire. In this list, most works appear because they are "important" in the history of the genre, which brings us back to where we started.

I agree with with his assessment of the shortcomings of the term "great operas", and the term "select operas" is what I was trying to think of during that previous RM. "Selected operas" would also be acceptable to me; however, "select operas" is a tad more concise as well as being more well-defined and precise for this purpose than "selected operas". I have not found the title proposed in any of the sources, and I hope that is not a deal breaker. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a title not in any source, when there are un-excluded options such as "Great operas" that occurs frequently in sources, this is a deal breaker. I suggest a multi-option survey, with independent scoring of each option. I will do so below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:SmokeyJoe's scoring of options on the table:
  • So sorry, I don't understand how you're scoring these. Can you explain it to me as if I were a 5-year-old? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Score voting. Each candidate title is given a score, 0-10 out of 10. 0 is completely ridiculous. 10 is perfect. 5 is barely OK. I score for each it on its merits, regardless of other options, which means any number of options can be added. I am open to being challenged on any. Naturally, the agreed worst options will drop out of contention. You can infer my current preference is "Great operas" and I am OK with another two. I can score other options that others add later. The scores are for communication; I happen like discussing relative numerical scores. However, my scores are NOT for adding or averaging with others. Other people may not like numerical scoring. You may prefer to score with descriptions, eg "perfect", "good enough", "fair", especially if you wan tot make sure no inept closer comes in an closes on a calculation (would be worse than !vote counting). I think it is a good way to encourage new ideas and reject the worst early. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you joke? "4/10" means "nice try, almost, but no". "10/10" means "perfect, obviously perfect" and you must be astounded that others don't agree. A "4/10" and a "10/10" given for the same thing means there is disconnect between perspectives, one or both are in error and conflict, and unreliable data should not be processed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose. Good grief no. This does not even make sense. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This List article does not purport to list every single opera article on Wikipedia. It is a much much more selective list which narrows the field to prominent operas -- specifically "all operas regularly performed today", as it says in the lead sentence -- not merely those which have Wikipedia articles.
You see, Softlavender, that is why I thought you might warm up to this proposed title. This is a select group of operas many if not all of which have been chosen, selected by modern opera goers to be attended over and over again. Guess I was incorrect. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 10:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... only that the lead says "including all operas regularly performed today" - stress by me, - others are important or significant for other reasons, such as something new in composition, relevance for a national identity, you name it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well for me, in my humble opinion, your correct description actually is supportive of the term "select operas", which sets this group apart from other operatic works in a more neutral manner than "important" or "prominent". I could be wrong, as I do appreciate your use of "significant". But why not just Significant operas? Why is "List of" necessary here? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have all these "List of compositions/List of works" articles. I hate it but who cares. I created Reger works, because it something you can remember and find. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great operas - 8/10. Out of all the (not particularly great) options, this is probably the best and get support from the sources.
  • Prominent operas. 6/10 as with SmokeyJoe
  • All others 5/10.
I really hope everyone else will also do scores because really the only way we're going to get anything out of this is by settling for something less than perfect. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This is a LIST article. The title of it is going to start with "List of" (WP:LISTNAME). Please stop suggesting titles other than in that format -- they are never going to gain consensus, and this just wastes the community's time. We've already wasted two months on the previous requested move. Since this RM is obviously a SNOW OPPOSE, I request that the filer withdraw and close this RM. As was clear at the previous RM, the current title is fine. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What if Macfarren's Helvellyn was the most famous of all English operas[edit]

What if George Alexander Macfarren's Helvellyn was the most famous of all English operas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.32.20.151 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opera in Portugal in the XIX century[edit]

There's operas in Portuguese of XIX century:

  1. Francisco de Sa Noronha (1820-1881): Um filho famílias
  2. Joaquim Casimiro Junior (1801-1862): A filha do Ar
  3. João Arroio (1861-1930): Amor de Perdição
  4. Francisco de Freitas Gazul (1842-1925): A cebola mysteriosa

176.32.16.2 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prominent_operas&oldid=1199645711"