Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of operas by Handel

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't really see what the problem is here. The list seems like it's notable and useful. Further, it has the potential of being so much more than it is right now (something like the
  talk) 11:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, per
  Nrswanson. The comparison with the Mozart opera page is a good one; let's develop the Handel page, not axe it. In the meantime I don't see how it cannot qualify in its own right as a WP-article. The objections seem more based on 'empire-building' than on the extension of knowledge.--Smerus (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I went ahead and added a brief intro the list. It obviously could be expanded and go into much more detail.
  talk) 11:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I can see significant benefit to the reader by having all the works on one page. But I can also see significant benefits to the reader to have in addition a page specifically devoted to the operas - provided it can be developed into something like the splendid
  List of operas by Mozart. Not an exact duplicate of what's on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, but an amplification of it. It would also have the advantage of being able to use a table format adapted to the kind of detail that's useful to a reader primarily interested in Handel's operas, but may not be desirable on the complete works page. Each page can then have a "see also" link. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's exactly what the initial issue was -- Kleinzach didn't just make this page, he deleted the info out of the list page, essentially implying that operas are important enough for their own page and nothing else is. It's hard to assume good faith when he constantly makes weird edits such as this one and very often skirts the line of

WP:OWN. Yes, a list with much expansion would be a very worthwhile thing (sort of akin to a 'series' article for video games or movies or whatever), but operas themselves aren't anything special in the overall grand scheme of the matter to warrant destruction of another article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see what I wrote above, "To clarify . . ." etc. Here are the recommendations in Wikipedia:Splitting:

>100 KB Almost certainly should be divided.

>60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

In this case the original page was 85K so splitting off the opera list was a normal WP process. --Kleinzach 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that is a little unfair to Kleinzach (although I can't speak for his behavior elsewhere). After all he was the one who created the initial list of operas to begin with. He was also trying to be in uniform with the series of articles found in

talk) 12:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If "85K" really was so bothersome to Kleinzach, why didn't he split out the (bigger) list of Cantatas and save even more? It's time for Keinzach to declare his real interest in editing areas to do with Handel. Is this a one-off rip (with ownership issues) in order to continue his opera crusade, or does he have any longer-term interest in improving the reader's experience on the List of Handel's works page? The following are eight points taken from the current discussion here that demonstrate why the "85K" is a meaningless smokescreen put up by Kleinzach in his rushed attempt to modify a page to his liking (without discussion or consensus).

• The current list page does not feature in the Top 1000 "long" pages, and is well short of the length of number 1,000 on that page (which is about 108K in length).
• Many of the pages in the top 1,000 are list pages, therefore there is ample precedence for allowing longer pages when in a list format.
• From Article length - Occasional exceptions: "Two exceptions are lists and articles summarizing certain fields". There is therefore basis for arguing that this list page should not be treated in the same category as normal "long pages".
• Other editors have found it convenient to list composer's works in entirety on "long" pages. E.g. Mozart and Bach are both greater than 85K in length.
• The Article length page has a section on No need for haste. For a change of this magnitude, there should be time to discuss the options.
• Due to the way modern browsers work (caching and staggered loading of individual parts of a page), there is not an inordinately long delay before the first (and subsequent) parts of the page are loaded. The breaking into categories of lists (operas, concertos, etc.) on the page help with browser caching and loading.
• If page size is an issue, what size is being attempted? With modern browsers and ever-increasing bandwidth, surely not the archaic 32K barrier? If not, then what size (40K, 50K, 60K, etc.)?
• According to Technical issues, an 85K page should take about 13 seconds to load in entirety—and that's with the slowest means possible of connecting to the internet (dial-up). Surely that's not a problem (and getting less of an issue all the time)?

And for the sake of completeness (and to indicate why discussion would have been nice), here are the other seven points from that page:

• One or two sections alone should not be sub-paged in order to reduce the size of the page. If only a few sections are to be sub-paged, then how to decide? The first, the largest, etc.?
• If all sections are to be sub-paged, the page would look ridiculous (little more than two sets of Contents).
• Because of the way the HWV numbering system was devised, and its implementation in separate lists on the page, other pages can link to categories as the page stands. For example, it is easy for another page to link to the List of Handel's operas section without it being on a sub-page.
• As the page stands, there is extra information in the various lists. I believe that much of that extra information will be moved to pages on individual works as they are created over time. For that reason, the page is not expected to grow much over the current 85K and will, over time, reduce in size.
• The current format is uncomplicated (no need for multiple-clicking to investigate Handel's works).
• The page is interesting in itself in terms of providing the reader with an idea of the scale of Handel's works. This would be lost with sub-paging.
• The strategy of seeing all the works together is utilised on just about all other composer's list pages.

 HWV 258  21:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, it is good to have a separate page for list of opera ONLY. Article "
  talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I can't see how this is any different than the many discography and bibliography lists that exist, especially since we're talking about an extremely notable composer of this genre. (I do not recognize
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as applying to this point - this is Handel we're talking about). This list helps serve a function of Wikipedia that a growing number of people seem to have forgotten about -- that it's an online reference tool. Someone doing research on Handel, and that's a given -- this ain't some obscure composer -- will be able to make use of this list; every item listed is a blue link, too. 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and give it some time to develop with a prose overview and more detail than the Opera section on List of compositions by George Frideric Handel and also keep the less detailed opera section in List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. In the Mozart case there's:

1. Köchel catalogue where all works are listed chronologically with the capacity for the reader to re-order by place, etc. and also in ascending and descending order and an explanation about the catalogue itself.
2. List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a "selective" (but pretty exhaustive) list of works by genre (including his operas) with only the K number and date, and one of its "daughters"...
3. List of operas by Mozart
   with more detailed information about each work as well as a prose overview of the subject.

I'm not suggesting that Handel be treated in the exact same way as Mozart has been, I'm simply pointing out the value of having both a "mother" and a "daughter" list. Obviously, there will be some degree of overlap (as opposed to straight duplication) of information, but I think that's a good thing, and one of the advantages of Wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia. It allows information to be organized and presented in a variety of ways and degrees of detail that can be helpful to different types of readers or to the same reader depending on what they need. Incidentally, I'm amazed that there's no link to Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis from List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. Not every reader will know what HWV stands for. Likewise a "see also" direct link to the complete list from Händel-Werke-Verzeichnis would be helpful. In any case, what should be paramount in this discussion should be the best way(s) to provide a good reader experience, not personal animosities or perceived past "misdeeds". Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Afterthought Another possible advantage of the separate operas list is that like the Mozart one it could use a less rigid definition of "operas" (see
  List of operas by Mozart#Basis for inclusion) than that of the HWV catalogue and include works like Acis and Galatea and Parnasso in festa. Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Per Kleinzach and Nrswanson, who said it best...and first!
  talk) 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep definitely per above. --Caspian blue 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer think the page should be deleted. I reacted (too quickly) to the sudden removal of information from the

Hmm. It is useful to the reader to have different lists of works of the same composer, for example by date/work number etc. It's not useful to duplicate the same list on different pages. That's confusing for the reader, especially in this case where one list (

List of operas by Handel) has been developed and edited, and the other one (List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Operas) hasn't. --Kleinzach 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The list doesn't have to be exactly the same (indeed it already isn't). I will however fight very hard to keep a list of Handel's operas (in some format) on the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel page. There is much that a complete list page can deliver to the reader. There will have to be wider community support for the removal of the entire list at that page, however that is a discussion for another place and time.

 HWV 258  02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.