Talk:Handel's lost Hamburg operas

Article name
@user:JackofOz

A suggestion has been made that the article should be moved to "Handel's lost Hamburg operas". I have opposed this on the grounds of existing title precedents incorporating a full name, in particular George Frideric Handel's art collection and Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi. However, if a talkpage consensus supports the move, I will accept it without demur. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would support moving all three pages:  Handel's lost Hamburg operas (currently a redirect), Handel's art collection and Lost operas by Monteverdi.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think actually you could get away with just "Lost Hamburg operas", or "Handel's lost Hamburg operas♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Handel's name must be in the title, otherwise it is pretty meaningless. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is that readers in search of the article can find it as easily as possible. Blue links and redirects will account for most visits to the page, I suspect, but what is anyone likely to type in if looking for this article from scratch? Will they type "Hamburg"? Our page listing his operas seems to say that there are no completely lost Handel operas from anywhere else. Would searchers be likely to add the place-name? I don't know. I think it unlikely that people will type his Christian names into the search box. We should keep Wikipedia internally consistent though, and I note we have articles titled Lost operas by Claudio Monteverdi and Lost operas by Jean-Philippe Rameau, although I rather agree with Jack that we don't need the given names. On the face of it, unless Brian feels that mention of Hamburg in the title is essential, I'd prefer (i) to go for Lost operas by Handel here and (ii) to trim the composers' names on the Monteverdi and Rameau lost opera pages to surnames only. But as long as the necessary redirects and links are in place I don't think it matters very much. (I've just typed "Handel lost operas"  and "Lost Handel operas" into the search box and got nothing very useful:  redirect pages would be useful for those phrases, I feel.)  Neither a very concise nor a very decisive contribution from me, I'm afraid, but I hope these comments are of some use.   Tim riley  talk    10:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There will be several more redirects added when the final title is agreed. Personally, though, I don't think that many readers will begin a cold search for this article; they are much more likely to encounter it through other Handel-related articles or lists, and I will ensure that there are appropriate "see also" links widely in place. On the question of what should be the title, I did not oppose Jack's move because I thought it was a bad idea; on the contrary, it was my original choice, before I discovered the tendency in existing WP articles to include composers' full names. I thought that I should comply; however, that tendency is not universal: we have, for example, Mozart in Italy, not "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Italy" which would be frightful. I would like to keep "Hamburg" in the title, because these lost operas were specific to that period of Handel's life, but having read this discussion and thought about it, I believe that "Handel's lost Hamburg operas" would be fine, with concomitant trimming in the other articles presently saddled with full names. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Further note: Attention User:JackofOz ; User:Dr. Blofeld; User:Tim riley:  It appears unlikely that there will be further discussion here on the question of the article's title. It seems that "Handel's lost Hamburg operas" is acceptable to three of the four particpants and probably to the fourth. Unless there are further specific objections, I will move the title to "Hamburg's lost operas" within the next few days. I don't propose at this stage to move the other articles mentioned in the discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no objections. Cheers.   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good outcome; the shorter name is a more sensible option. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very happy to sign up to that.  Tim riley  talk    09:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pre-PR comments
Brian, you asked me to run a preliminary eye over the piece and comment here. I can find very little to remark on: I need hardly say that I enjoyed the article very much – a good read and highly instructive at the same time. I'll look in at the PR when you open it, but I don't expect to have much to contribute then. –  Tim riley  talk    11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Halle
 * "the Elector and future Emperor Frederick I" – he was never Emperor according to our WP article on him. Evidently the best he could manage was "King in [not of] Prussia", poor soul.
 * "Handel would have liked to go to Italy, but this, he realised, was not yet practicable" – it would be good if you tell us why it wasn't yet practicable. The still, small voice of coin?
 * Almira
 * "Handel's biographer Jonathan Keates" – you've told us earlier that Keates is Jonathan and that he is Handel's biographer.
 * Florindo and Daphne
 * "the musicologist Charles Cudworth" – we've already met him in the Nero section; we could lose his first name and job description this time.
 * Afterwards
 * "his earliest biographer, Mainwaring" – perhaps include his first name and a link to his article in the text rather than (or perhaps in addition to) Note 1?
 * ranking alongside Mozart, Verdi and Wagner? – Hmm. Not a widely-shared view, I'd say, and perhaps your peroration would be safer with a less partisan quotation. I don't press the point.


 * Thanks, Tim, for these initial comments; I've fixed all the obvious ones. On the opinion of Dean and Knapp concerning Handel's stature as an opera composer, I have presented it as their belief, not as fact. It's not an issue that is central to this article, and I'd rather keep it, but perhaps moderate it with a less emphatic opinion. PR early January I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tim riley Tim: I wonder whether the current article Florindo should be merged with this? It's little more than a stub, and contains nothing that isn't covered in greater detail here. There's a procedure for merging that will need to be followed, but what do you think? (Other opinions likewise welcomed) Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be helpful to readers. The existing page could become a redirect to point to the bookmark in the Lost operas page, and all the relevant info would be on the one page. I have seen merger proposals for various articles in passing, but have no idea of the approved procedure. I'll certainly add my small bit in favour of such a move. I suppose it's too much to hope that we could arrange for some more of Handel's operas to be lost?  Tim riley  talk    17:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox?
I tried an infobox for this article, as shown, modeled after FA Rinaldo. The present side-navbox is not only redundant to the bottom-navbox, it also shows a mature Handel, while the composer of these works was a teenager. I find that misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the side navbox is redundant to the bottom navbox.. I also like the younger image.  I think a small, discreet infobox like that one is appropriate.  Montanabw (talk)  16:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Handel" template is at present the standard on all Handel opera articles. In January 2016, Gerda replaced the template with her "infobox" on both the  Rinaldo and Agrippina articles, with no talkpage discussion. This is not acceptable  and I have reverted these to the template. The proposed infobox is not without merit, but a lot of people will need convincing that it is a fitting replacement for the standard template. Common sense, and experience in other forums, should warn against the taking of unilateral action in contentious areas.  In the meantime a place might be found for the "young Handel"  image   in the main text of article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I accept your wish, but have one also: please don't call it "her infobox". When I add an infobox to an opera I remember the work of Viva-Verdi who inserted the infobox to Falstaff (and all operas by Verdi, which had a side navbox before). Falstaff was TFA on 1 January, telling me that opera infoboxes were no longer contentious. Sorry if I misunderstood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. "her infobox" is a bit incivil.  Infoboxes exist in a majority of Wikipedia articles, they are hardly Gerda's invention.   Montanabw (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur. This kind of personalization of infobox-related dispute is why I and others are asking ArbCom to apply WP:AC/DS to the topic of infoboxes, at WP:ARCA.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No incivility was intended, and I am sorry my throwaway comment was interpreted as such. Compared with some of the personalisation and bandying-about of insults that often occurs in infobox discussions (and which I don't join in) it scarcely registers. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Brian, I didn't read it as incivil, - just something I hear too much. I agree that it is much milder than "morbid" which I received for mentioning that I think a discussion about a hidden comment is out of proportion, facing the death of a young Wikipedian. I wrote A Requiem in Our Time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally support the inclusion of infoboxes, but I don't feel the one in this article adds anything, and could just be replaced with whatever image best represents Handel in the time span of these lost operas. The current i-box is not comparable to the one illustrated in this thread, which would be appropriate for a specific opera, providing key facts about it. The present i-box at this list does not do this, but provides nothing but collapsed lists of Handel's other works, which is what a navbox is for. This particular article would appear to need no i-box. The one pictured in this thread (with details adjusted) would be better at Rinaldo (opera) and Agrippina (opera) than the one they presently have (and I do agree they need one, just not that one). The embedded-lists version is problematic aside from redundancy with the navbox; it greatly slows page loading, and it appears in fully expanded form until the page finishes loading and the JS can go to work collapsing the lists. This is highly sub-optimal. PS: The picture used should, when possible, be representative of the composer in his period of life in which the opera was written, not chosen simply because someone finds it prettier.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As Brianboulton says above The "Handel" template is at present the standard on all Handel opera articles, about fifty of them. The template, with the same picture of the composer, is a unifying image for the series and allows easy exploration of one work to another. Please, please leave it there on Handel opera articles.Smeat75 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The suggested image is a version of File:Georg Friedrich Händel as a young man.jpg. This is a photograph of a portrait miniature that was stolen from the Händel-Haus in 1948, and it seems likely that the colour version is a hand-coloured pre-1948 photograph, probably coloured without reference to the original portrait. I favour the black-and-white version. However, the point about a common infobox with related articles is valid; perhaps we can use the image in the main text. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Navbox
The composer navbox George Frideric Handel was removed (twice), making this featured article the only one mentioned in it that doesn't have it. Brianboulton, do you think that is a good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated by SagaciousPhil in her edit summary, the composer navbox at the foot of the article is largely redundant with the Handel template in place, but as it seems to be a standard feature of opera articles, it should be here too - it does no harm. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that ArbCom said that LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't apply -- the "standard feature of opera articles" fight was what led to the ArbCom infobox case. These side navboxes were another way to avoid "teh dreaded IB" during that battle, and they are redundant.  Just an image would be better than a redundant navbox, IMHO.   Montanabw (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It should remain per the instructions at WP:NAVBOX: If something has an entry in the navbox, then the navbox should appear in that article, and vice versa (in both senses). The case for retaining the navbox is much stronger than for retaining the infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The navbox at the bottom is back, see second comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Handel or Händel?
I wonder what we should do about the composer's name in this article. He is known as Handel, but this topic plays at a time when he was Georg Friedrich Händel. The minimum is a footnote, explanation in the lead perhaps better, but calling him in German and explain (or say by footnote) that he would later live in England with an English name is also an option. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use Handel, as that is how he is almost always referred to by English-speaking readers, the vast majority of whom will be entirely unaware of the German spelling that he used before he came to England. By all means let's have a footnote. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They may be unaware when they come, but should we leave them that way? He was born Händel, and was Händel when these early operas were written. Pronounciation the same ;) I am not sure we should use common name rules (preferring Munich over München) for the names of people who historically had different names during their lives. When a woman marries and takes her husband's name, we use that, but not for the time when she was little (I hope). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Gerda's proposal and I'm surprised this didn't get mentioned in the article's peer and FA reviews. The article already has a footnote regarding the name change, so that's covered. Changing the spelling of his name throughout the article, while historically correct, would however create a conflict with its title, and that is unacceptable – so the article would need to be moved, which is an even bigger deal. As for the COMMONNAME argument: we have articles that change the name used in the article in line with the time when the subject's name changed. On balance, I'm on the fence. This is not a high-profile article and it gets few edits and views; getting consensus to change a FA doesn't seem worth the effort. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried - before reading this (I go my watchlist backwards in time) - to enter his full birth name in the prose when his birth is mentioned but otherwise agree to use Handel. What do you (all) think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds very good. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancy Between This Version, and Front Page.
I just want to report a perceived discrepancy: Reading the front page today, where this is the featured article. The final sentence reads, "some of these elements have been incorporated into an orchestral suite first recorded in 2012."

The corresponding sentence on this article reads "... first recorded in December 1997." InhumaneRiver (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, and 2012 is the year of reissue on CD. Please say all this on WP:ERRORS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)