Talk:List of operas by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Piped links

I hope whoever thinks Operatic works of W. A. Mozart is how the Wikipedia reader will really search this information will take the trouble to search "Mozart opera" and make piped links to this article. --Wetman (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the somewhat sneery tone of the above comment, but this list is still under development. There will be links to and from all the individual operas when the list is ready, and any other links considered appropriate These things take time. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Wetman shouldn't sneer, but he's right that the original title is rather obscure. I've renamed to the most direct rendering I could think of.

I think it was a good idea on BB's part to have an article about Mozart's operas in general. As the current version shows, there are nice observations in the scholarly literature that generalize across the operas (such as the mutual resemblance of Mozart's resourceful soubrettes).

Opus33 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I had put in various redirects, so that "Mozart's operas" found the article even before the name change, as did other variants. My problem with this as the article's formal title is that it raises expectation of a fully-developed article about Mozart's operas, when my main objective was to present an informative list. It's perhaps my fault that I didn't give advance notice my intentions. Anyway, the most appropriate title is probably "List of Mozart's operas" - which rightly focuses on the list. I'm not suggestinfg an immediate change, but perhaps further thought needs to be given. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My two cents is that Mozart's full name (matching the name of his article) should appear somewhere near the top. It doesn't matter to me whether the bolded part becomes Operatic works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or the second paragraph starts with the wikified Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but its customary not to abbreviate someone's name the first time it shows up. DavidRF (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After discussions on the Opera Wikiproject talk page, the title of this article is now "List of Mozart's operas", reflecting its essential character as a list rather than a general disquisition on the operas. It is also formally linked to the main list of Mozart's compositions. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Da Ponte and Lo sposo deluso

It is my understanding that Alessandra Campana has now proven that Da Ponte was not the author of Lo sposo deluso and that Neal Zaslaw has found some compelling evidence to suggest that the author was in fact Giuseppe Petrosellini. Other than that I think the intro is wonderful.Nrswanson (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you can cite this information I will alter the lead accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you are: Although it was once thought that Lorenzo da Ponte might have been the author of the libretto, scholarship by Alessandra Campana has established that the libretto was written by an unknown Italian poet for Domenico Cimarosa's opera Le donne rivali, which he composed for the Rome carnival season of 1780.(Campana (1988-89) cited in Dell Antonio (1996) pp.404-405) According to Neal Zaslaw, Cimarosa's librettist may have been Giuseppe Petrosellini, the house poet of the Teatro Valle where Le donne rivali premiered. (Petrosellini was also the probable librettist of Mozart's earlier opera La finta giardiniera).(Zaslaw (1996) p. 415)

• Campana, Alessandra, 'Il libretto de Lo sposo deluso', Mozart-Jahrbuch (1988-89), pp. 573-88.

• Zaslaw, Neal, 'Waiting for Figaro' in Stanley Sadie, (ed.) Wolfgang Amadé Mozart: Essays on His Life and Work, (1996) London: Oxford University Press.

I hope this is helpful.Nrswanson (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thank you. I have altered the text and referenced it to Campana. Do you have publisher and ISBN for the Mozart-Jahrbuch? Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The actual citation I used in the article is:

Campana (1988-89) cited in Dell Antonio (1996) pp.404-405

So you probably don't need the ISBN number for Campana itself. Here's the information for Dell' Antonio:

Dell' Antonio, Andrew, 'Il Compositore Deluso: The Fragments of Mozart's Comic Opera Lo Sposo Deluso (K424a/430)' in Stanley Sadie, (ed.) Wolfgang Amadé Mozart: Essays on His Life and Work, (1996) London: Oxford University Press. (ISBN:0198164432).

However, the Dell' Antonio essay does not name 'the unknown poet'. This is done in the Zaslaw reference above (page 415). Also, Nrswanson, it's not accurate to say that Zaslaw has found "compelling evidence" for Petrosellini being the 'unknown poet'. Dell' Antonio says that Campana found compelling evidence that the librettist was not Da Ponte but the unknown librettist of Cimarosa's Le donne rivali. It is Zaslaw who suggests that Cimarosa's librettist was Petrosellini, but he only suggests this in passing and says that it is unclear how Mozart got hold of the libretto and who he had hired to adapt it. That's why I pretty much reverted the changes you (Nrswanson) had made to the article the other day. Besides, the reference you gave for Petrosellini was from Operone, which has a clear "?" after Petrosellini's name as librettist. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant fact for this article is that there is compelling evidence that the librettist was not Da Ponte, and I have reworded accordingly. Debates about whether it was Petrosellini or someone else properly belong to the opera article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You should still mention that it uses an identical libretto to the Cimarosa opera.Nrswanson (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an opera-specific fact, and it's in footnote [8] rather than in the body of the article. That, I think, is the best way of dealing with it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to and from Template:Mozart operas

It might be a good idea to link to and/or from the template. Its a side-template, so it might not look as good on this page, but a link at the bottom of the template might be good (or one could link here from the word "Operas" on the top. Not sure on the details. DavidRF (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be possible to make a special 'flat' version for this page. On the other hand, doesn't the table provide this information anyway? --Kleinzach 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be quite redundant and clutter the page. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of the section was "Links to and from Template:Mozart operas" (emphasis added). I think this is important. While I agree that the template would be utterly superfluous on this page, it might be a good idea for it to include a link here. I can think of two ways, offhand, for this to work: (1) turn the word "Operas" in the title of the infobox to a piped link here, or (2) put a line under the main title which said "Main Article: List of Mozart's operas". The first, in my view, would be more aesthetically pleasing, but some readers might assume that a link from "Operas" would go straight to the opera article, and ignore it. As such, I don't know which is preferable, but am strongly in favour of a link here of some sort from the template. 220.237.9.207 (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to log in, but the last comment was by Rurp (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Opera Project discussion

This article is now being discussed on the Opera Project here: [1] --Kleinzach 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Role lists

This is the only list of works I know of that includes full role lists (e.g. Belmonte (tenor); Pedrillo (tenor); Constanze (soprano) etc). This information is tabled (with the names of role creators) in the individual opera articles, so is it redundant here? IMO the table would be more compact - and so easier to use - without this information. What do other people think? --Kleinzach 09:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this list is to summarise, in one place, information that exists elsewhere, in a large number of different locations. The idea is to provide a convenient overview. I am expanding on the thoughts behind the list on the project discussion page. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If, for example, it said '3 sopranos, 2 tenors etc.' that indeed would be a summary, but at the moment it simply relists the cast. --Kleinzach 10:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See Opera Wikiproject talk page for more discussion on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Article's quality rating

Seeing that someone has rated this article as "Start" quality, I thought I'd check to see what this means for opera-related articles. I find that for a start-rated opera article:-

"Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it needs to be built"

Is this fair comment on this article, which has been (a) carefully researched, (b) carefully and comprehensively prepared, (c) checked and corrected in the light of fresh information/viewpoints, and is also fully referenced and footnoted? I'm not saying it can't be improved, but the above judgement seems dismissive. Would whoever made this decision care to explain the decision? Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We only have nominal rating at the moment. Real assessments haven't started. To avoid misunderstanding I've uprated to B. To be considered as a Featured List it has to be peer reviewed. This might be worth doing. Best. --Kleinzach 13:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't mean to sound quite so peevish. Peer review is certainly a possibility, but I have more checking/double-checking to do first. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How can this page be a list and not an article with bits like this : "stream of memorable, strongly-drawn female characters, in particular the so-called "Viennese soubrettes" who, in Charles Osborne's phrase, "contrive to combine charm with managerial instinct"? I'd be for making it an article rather than a list, but am willing to discuss...Safebreaker (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

List is a new class. Please refer to centralized discussions. In any case as explained above this is nominal. --Kleinzach 12:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I prepared it as a list. Lists can have background text attached to them, but the main focus is still on the listing. This is not a general article about Mozart's operas; if it were to be taken forward, it would be towards a Featured List, but that's premature at the moment - I'm still working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've decided to send this to peer review, to get some feedback from the wider community. I will continue to look for and implement small improvements. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

The peer review has been silent for some time. I believe that the list is probably as developed as it can be, and I propose shortly to close the review and nominate at FLC. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw your request for comments, so I came by. I suggest that you move your fourth paragraph, (beginning "Mozart's texts came from a variety of sources..." up to become the second paragraph. Then, I would consider adding a heading over the 3rd and 4th paragraphs like "Analysis". As far as what is included in the table, I don't see any need to break down the voice parts. If you would like to give an idea of the scale of the work, you could say something like "6 principal singing roles, 2 speaking roles, chorus, ballet and chamber orchestra", etc. I think, more important to readers might be an indication (perhaps in the text above?) of which ones were most popular in Mozart's time, and which have become standard rep. Running time might be interesting. Also, you might add a Recordings section. I am not planning to watch this page, so if you have any further questions, please leave them at my talk page. Hope this was helpful. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not anxious to develop or extend the text, since this is a list, not an article. I have sought to include a minimum amount of analytical text, consistent with an annotated list rather than with an article discussing the operas in depth. I think that getting into the relative popularity of the operas, or including a recordings section, would be more suitable for an opera article than for a list. The decision to include voice parts was made after substantial discussion at the Opera project. Running times, particularly of the earlier works, are dependent, among other things, on what cuts are made, so times would have to be very approximate and not particularly useful (I attended a performance of Ascanio in Alba that lasted 95 minutes when my recordings give it 160 minutes). But I will certainly look at your helpful suggestion about reordering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You might mention that scores of the da Ponte operas, La clemenza and Idomeneo are available at IMSLP. Smerus (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

oops! I take that back - on checking I see that only Die Entfuehrung, DG and Figaro are available in full, the rest are just overtures. Apologies.Smerus (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

All the scores for all Mozart works are available at Neue Mozart-Ausgabe. There should be a link at the bottom of all if his works using Template:NMA. A truncated version of that link could be added to this table if that's desired. DavidRF (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm away from home and bookshelves this week, and can therefore add little to this impressively documented article. All I can think of is that English National Opera logically but in the teeth of custom and practice insist on translating Le Nozze di Figaro as 'Figaro's Wedding' (cf the German version, Figaros Hochzeit.) Will gladly give the article another going over next week when back in touch with my reference books, if that would be helpful. Tim riley (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Figaro female voice parts

There are seven female voices in Figaro, beside the chorus:

• Soprano: Susanna, Countess, Barbarina, 1st servant girl
• Mezzo: Marcellina, Cherubino, 2nd servant girl.

Above designations are not absolute. Cherubino is ofter sung by a soprano, Marcellina sometimes by a contralto, but the 4:3 combination of soprano-mezzo is broady true. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sortability?

All the other 22 Lists in Category:Lists of operas by composer are now sortable, see List of operas by Handel as an example. Should this one be sortable as well? Best. --Kleinzach 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

La Betulia Liberata belongs to the list of Mozart's Operatic works

This is a reminder. Argumentation to follow. The designation of "oratorio" is no reason not to include this work as an opera, as do most experts. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This list includes theatrical works which means works "performed on a stage, by vocalists singing in character, in accordance with stage directions." Betulia liberata doesn't seem to fall into this class.

Aside: The previous contribution on this talk page was from December 2008, which indicates not a great amount of interest. If such a change is requested, a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera would attract more qualified input. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True phoenix

The letter mentioning Mozart's idea of a "true phoenix" seems to be from 1781,[2][3] and not 1774, as stated in note 8. But I don't have access to the Holden book, so I wanted to check here first. Lesgles (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The letter you quote is indeed from 1781 (13 October) and deals in parts with Entführung (1782), but it doesn't mention Da Ponte. Their 1st collaboration, Figaro, was written in 1786. According to his article, Da Ponte wrote nothing before 1783, so why WAM would have commented on him in 1774 seems unclear. The quote in this article goes back to the 1st version of this article from 22 June 2008 by User:Brianboulton. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Row colours

Shabidoo, what are the row colours you added supposed to indicate? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

They are incomplete operas. We can make a key. I was very surprised to see those three operas on a list the first time I saw it some years ago. It is a very good idea to note that. May also be a good idea to colour Der Stein der Weisen, which is a pastiche with other composers (an opera the vast majority of people will be very surprised to see on that list). But I don't think it essential. Coloring the three incomplete ones, I think helps readers understand whats with these operas theyve never head of before quickly. If having the whole line covered is too much of a distraction (which i dont think so) we can colour just the description cell which mentions incomplete. Shabidoo | Talk 14:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely needs explanation in the article. Imagine you are blind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, agree. Added key. Shabidoo | Talk 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Since 2008, this has been a featured list. The recent modifications by User:Shabidoo are IMO no improvement, and per WP:BRD, I reverted them. They should be discussed first. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Being featured or not is irrelevant. All articles can always be improved.

The list is more than a list but a huge chunky chart saturated with information, bulky and difficult to manage and follow and with a fair bit of formatting that really really needs standardizing and consistency. Take a look at lists all around Wikipedia and tell me how many are this bulky and lack an easy to follow career progressive where the reader can quickly and easily compare facts about the different operas? Shabidoo | Talk 17:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It is widespread practice that featured content is only substantially altered after discussing the intended changes – stability of content is one of the featured list criteria. Such a discussion should invite those involved in the development of the list and participants in the peer review and reviewing its featured status.

I don't understand your objections nor how your edits overcome the deficiencies you perceive. How is it bulky? It contained 8 columns of essential information, the same as after your edits. How is it difficult to manage (what does that mean?) and follow? How did the list "lack an easy to follow career progressive where the reader can quickly and easily compare facts about the different operas" and how did your edits remedy that perception? The version from October 2018 and yours contain the same amount of information. Inconsistent formatting was mainly introduced by you (italics for title got lost, instead they are bold; font size of many items got unnecessarily reduced; several column headings were unnecessarily abbreviated; some random items in citations were bolded; and finally the bulk of the article was duplicated. That's when I stepped in and restored an earlier version of yours, retaining the colour coding of some rows that you introduced, although in a more efficient manner. Below are the two versions I'm talking about. (Note that the dates are AEST, not UTC.)

1. last stable version, 18 October 2018
2. Shabidoo's version from 7 December 2018
3. most recent edit by Shabidoo, 3 February 2019

Which parts of your version from 3 February would you suggest should kept?

I just noticed that you started to change List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner. One thing that struck me immediately as a severe disimprovement was the combination of two columns, Genre and Acts; that only made the table more difficult to navigate. I will comment there later. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in your link that clearly demonstrates that policy, most certainly not directly. This is the first I've ever heard about featured lists etc. And its the first I have ever seen anyone complain (I've seen many lists radically change and in almost every case no one challenged it because it was an improvement. In fact this is the first time I've ever seen a revert due to condensing or restructuring information.

I'm sorry you cannot quite work out what is meant by bulky, perhaps you have a particularly large browser? A cell which is jammed so small because of so many columns, ends up having 10 lines on many browser and even more on the mobile site.

As for essential information, I'm not sure that people, when they look at a summary list of Operas, that who name of the person who wrote the play that the opera inspired/partly-inspired is something most anyone would care about, let alone "essential information". Most other lists of operas by composers either lack that kind of information or add it sparingly, and most aren't stuffed to the limits with such info, at least not enough to have this huge long cells. When browsing the rows with these long cells, you can only fit about 3 rows in a small browser and 2 or 3 on a phone browser. You loose the ability to summarily compare operas with one another without flicking through the page with tons of up/down scrolls. And yes, it is hard to compare entries when you have to move the screen back to the left, go up and find the name of the opera, then move right to get to the data so you can compare it. People with small browsers or devices (a lot of readers) ought to be considered too. As I said, if you take a survey of lists online, there are very very very few that are this cluttered. The merging of acts and type of Opera means a loss of zero information and more space for the cluttered notes/remarks section to expand and fit more text inside. That is what makes it easier to navigate. Wikipedian readers are quite capable of distinguishing a kind of opera and number of acts in one cell. As for consistency, the voices column a few voices had multiple ways of being expressed and the order of voices was inconsistent. As for the brackets around the English translation (and with "English translation" written in, this adds more text. Wikipedians are more than capable of figuring out a BOLD title in Italian or German is the original title and the English translation before in a smaller font is in English. This, again, loses no information, reduces characters AND cuts down on a few lines so some cells aren't bulging with text. Shabidoo | Talk 00:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

How about copying an example (with column headers) here, because I am interested, but clicking back and forth to versions is hard. I have an article to write. - Or make a numbered list of the changes one could specifically comment.

1. I don't like small fonts, for two reasons: hard to read, and inviting mistakes. I keep repairing missing ends of small. Long info could perhaps go to footnotes?
2. I don't think we need "of opera" in the header, nor "of composition", - that could be explained above. "Language" could just be explained, also that translations come below the original title, - instead of repeating "eng:" for every opera.
3. We don't need the full names of librettist.
4. I'm not sure that we need performance details other than premiere date and location in this kind of overview.

Extremely, we could make two lists, one only with basics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree that Shabidoo's edits after 7 December constitute an improvement. Shuffling information from one column into another is pointless and doesn't decrease "bulkiness". Most lists of operas by composer follow the same format, and they're all difficult to read on a mobile phone. I doubt there's anything that can be done about that. This list contains slightly more information than the others – that's why it's a Featured List, and any of those will present the same problem on very small screens.
• Merging genre and acts in the Wagner list lost the ability to sort the table for that.
• Abbreviating voice types and adding a legend for the abbreviations saved nothing.
• The idea of listing 3 earlier versions above was to let readers open those in tabs in their browser through which they then can cycle.
• Items in the header row could be shortened (omit "Year composed", "Type of opera") but that will achieve only a minimal reduction.
• Librettists' name could be shortened, but again, that would have only a small effect.
• The content of "First performance details" is uneven in quantity. Simply listing the date & location does no justice to some of the earlier or less well know works. The entry for Don Giovanni can be trimmed (omit other names for the theatre).
• I have no objection if someone creates a second list "only with basic", but that might run foul of WP:CONTENTFORK. I also don't see how such a list could be constructed to fit on a 5″ screen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear: I talked mostly about how to improve the "stable" version. Opening several windows is not possible for all readers - but perhaps they don't care anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Betulia liberata

La Betulia liberata is the title of a libretto by Pietro Metastasio. Many composers set it to music but the most famous version is the Opera by Mozart. Somehow that opera needs to be included in this list.

It might be the case that La Betulia liberata (Mozart) should be a stand alone article. I am not competent to address these questions but I hope somebody is.--Toploftical (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised here before; see #La Betulia Liberata belongs to the list of Mozart's Operatic works from July 2014. It's not clear cut whether Betulia should be counted as an opera, but it probably wouldn't hurt if it were listed here. In any case, I agree that two articles, one for the libretto and one for Mozart's work, would be much better. Our German colleagues have an impressive article for de:La Betulia liberata (Metastasio) and one comparable to our Betulia liberata at de:La Betulia liberata. Having two distinct articles here would also solve the Bonny and Clyde problem of interwiki linking. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

added {{lang}} as required by MOS/Text formatting § Foreign terms

I've added the {{lang}} template throughout the table of works, as required by MOS/Text formatting § Foreign terms.

I'm looking at the challenge of writing scripts to automate the tagging of foreign CreativeWork titles within enWP to identify their languages. The above MOS link explains the rationale behind this.

For those who are interested in following this experiment, I am still groping my way around the issues but have set up CSS to tint the background of language-tagged WP content. lang=fr is tinted blue; lang=de yellow; lang=it green; lang=la lightgreen (hey, don't shout at me .. I'm an editor not a linguist). The (evolving) list is at User:Scarabocchio/common.css. Wish me luck. Scarabocchio (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)