Talk:Ezio (Handel)

Comment

Why "(Latin Aetius)" after the title of the opera? Is the opera or the character in the opera (as opposed to the historical personage) referred to as Aetius? My guess is no, so I don't think that is needed. The connection to the historical Aetius is mentioned further down. --Macrakis 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is our style for opera articles - similar to that used in other encyclopedias. We usually give an English equivalent (for the name of the opera) in parentheses - this time it is Latin.

I am not familiar with your user name. Have you just started writing about opera? If so you are very welcome. Handel is the opera composer of the month on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. There is a lot to do. The Handel articles are generally rather threadbare and poorly worded. There is a list of them on the project page. etc. Regards. - Kleinzach 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know very little about opera. I started from the Aetius article, noticed that the opera Ezio had Aetius as protagonist, and made sure the link was made on both ends.

As for "(Latin Aetius)", I'm still not sure I understand the scheme. Would the opera Edipo re have the annotation (Greek Οἰδίπους Τύραννος) or (Latin Oedipus Rex)? Why? The opera was never called by those names, and the character is presumably wikilinked to the original.... --Macrakis 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Which opera do you have in mind? The Leoncavallo? It's a rare beast so there is no article about it here - or in Grove. But in theory we would presumably use Oedipus Rex or Oedipus the King. It's basically for identification - but also because Wikipedia has guidelines about the use of foreign/English names.

This has never been much of an issue - although some people have tried to translate everything into English which we have resisted - partly because there is normally a synopsis explaining the story. In any case we are only following the style of other encyclopedias.

What do you mean when you say the character is presumably wikilinked to the original? Which character and which original? - Kleinzach 20:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused, I'm afraid. The article starts "Ezio (Latin Aetius)"; if it were to be in English, I don't understand why the word "Latin" is needed; on the other hand, Aetius is unfamiliar enough nowadays that I'm not sure the English name is much help! As for the Wikilinking, in the sentence about the protagonist which I added, I linked Flavius Aetius, so if the reader wants to know about the historical personage Flavius Aetius on which Handel's fictional character Ezio is based, the reader can follow the link. That's all. --Macrakis 21:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also a little confused about why we having a such a long discussion about this. I have deleted the word Latin which I agree is not essential in this case. Is that OK now? I assume that someone will add a proper synopsis in due course - without which the article will be incomplete - and the sentence you wrote will be subsumed within it. - Kleinzach 23:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these discussions can get much too long too quickly. It's much clearer now. I had assumed that the tag "Latin" was there for some important reason and was trying to puzzle it out. --Macrakis 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ezio (Handel) → Ezio (opera) – I suggest to move this page back to Ezio (opera) and incorporate that page, which has been usurped for a disambiguation page, into Ezio. There are more than 100 links to Ezio (opera) which all mean the Handel work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Support per nom and WP:SNOW. --GuillaumeTell 15:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Careful now - a lot of those incoming links are from the Handel template, meaning that if the template linked to the page on the Handel opera instead of the dab page (ie. if it linked to the correct page), your argument would be rather weaker. Do you know how many of those links are actually in-text? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course the majority, but not all, of the incoming links are created by the template {{Handel}}. That doesn't weaken the argument against an inappropriate move.

The current scheme does not follow the principles laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: avoiding ambiguity and the move itself disregarded Moving pages to new titles. Clearly, the page Ezio (opera) should point to an opera, not to a disambiguation page. As to the weakness of my argument: I haven't seen any argument in favour of the move. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – the title should conform to the current project guideline. If the current guideline is thought to be incorrect, then a proposal to change it can be made and discussed. I can see that perhaps Ezio (Handel) might be thought better, but why not Ezio (opera by Handel). Wouldn't that be a name that would be far less ambiguous for readers with less knowledge of opera than most of regular editors in this area have? And even for knowledgeable opera goers, it isn't always easy to remember which pieces by Handel are cantatas, oratorios, or operas... :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"(opera by Handel)" seems to be against standard practice (see La bohème (Leoncavallo). also, Handel's oratorios are almost all in English, though the cantatas are not. ;) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The Handel work does not appear to be the primary usage for Ezio, so it should remain a disambiguation page. A huge number of the incoming links are from a misdirected template, so that is easily corrected. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no primary topic for an opera Ezio – they're all obscure. But that's not the point; the above quoted section "Operas: avoiding ambiguity" specifies that first, a title is disambiguated by "(opera)", and subsequent titles by the composer's name. That schem was in place for Ezio until the recent move. To repeat: having the page Ezio (opera) not for an opera seems quite counterintuitive and unsupported by any naming convention. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the dab page matter is iffy and that perhaps everything should be disambiguated at Ezio, but I continue to disagree that it is appropriate for Ezio (opera) to discuss Handel and not, say, Gluck, since Handel's version is clearly not the primary topic for Ezio, opera. Perhaps Ezio (opera) should redirect to Ezio (rather than being deleted as per Noetica), which would cover all the bases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Ezio (opera) shouldn't be a disambiguation page — it has to be Ezio because we don't have sub-disambig pages, and they have to be easy for readers to find. --Kleinzach 04:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would be happier to see Ezio as a single DAB page, and Ezio (opera) deleted – if the argument of my valued colleague Kleinzach holds up. Ezio (opera) for just one of several operas would be misleading, and insular (literally, for those British Isles); not appropriate in an international encyclopedia. Noetica^Tea? 04:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

a) That's what I proposed; b) that's in the section I quoted twice (see also the 2 versions of Cyrano (as "(opera)" and as "(Damrosch)", similar for Falstaff, Pryamus and Thisbe, The Tempest). I know there are counter examples, but here we had established usage supported by guidelines. Any further disambiguation could have been incorporated at Ezio. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tangentially, Damrosch's version appears to be the primary topic for Cyrano, opera - might be due to age, but it's still a predominance of sources - so those should be flipped. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case Michael, I find your initial summary itself (without interpretation from what follows it) genuinely misleading. I'm sure you did not intend it to be. As things stand, I still cannot be sure precisely how you see things ending up. On this ground alone I would strengthen my opposition. If I have misread the summary and still can't work it out with certainty, others seeing your summary may well dismiss the RM as something they need not comment on. Sorry: I can't help that! I now suggest that you withdraw the RM, and re-present it without any ambiguity. Noetica^Tea? 05:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I proposed that Ezio (Handel) be moved to Ezio (opera) and to incorporate the current content of the latter into Ezio. In other words, restore the previous state of affairs. I can't formulate it any clearer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

O, but I think you could ☺. You now mention a "previous state of affairs"; but the reader of the list of RMs can't tell exactly what that was – nor what you intend for Ezio (Handel) in the new state of affairs. Did it even exist, in the old state of affairs (if there was a single "previous state of affairs")? Do you now want it deleted, or to remain as a redirect to Ezio (opera)? Why is the present Ezio (opera) headed with the banner: "This page appears to be an incomplete disambiguation ..."? Shouldn't that be resolved before anything else? Why is Ezio (Latilla) listed with "Ezio" italicised at one DAB page, and unitalicised at the other? Sorry: it's all a mess. At the very least this should have been a multiple listing (see relevant instructions at WP:RM), with a clear and complete explanation of how every article with "Ezio" in its title would fit into the story once it's all done. I call for this to be closed now, and for a new RM to be listed, transparently and according to due process – after some preliminary tying of loose ends. Noetica^Tea? 08:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all there in the histories of Ezio (opera) and Ezio (Handel); and "restore the previous state of affairs" is just longhand for my original "back". My sentence in the RM nomination may have been terse, but I dispute it was ambiguous.

Again, in even longer-hand: The article on the Handel opera was named Ezio (opera) since its inception in 2005 until the recent move on 21 August 2011 to Ezio (Handel) which had not existed before. My proposal is to reverse that move. As a normal by-product of that reversal, Ezio (Handel) will become a redirect to Ezio (opera). The inconsistencies between Ezio and Ezio (opera) (and its bannering which was added by a bot) will disappear as the latter will no longer be a "disambiguation" page but deal with Handel's opera. Ezio will include a complete (and properly formatted) list of the various operatic versions.

If the Opera Project's guidelines for disambiguation, which don't mention the principle of primary topic, need revising, that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. As they are, and also with regard to the general WP:DABNAME, the move from 21 August was ill considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This opera is either the primary topic of everything named "Ezio", or it needs a unique disambiguation. It can't be the primary topic of "Ezio (opera)" because that is ambiguous – it could refer to any of the operas by that name. The content currently at Ezio (opera) should be merged into the Ezio disambiguation page and Ezio (opera) should redirect there, to the dab page, because it is ambiguous. Jenks24 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ezio (Handel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714173520/http://gfhandel.org/1to42.html to http://gfhandel.org/1to42.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131605343400/http://gfhandel.org/biography.html to http://gfhandel.org/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ezio (Handel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113012449/http://www.handelhouse.org/discover/george-frideric-handel/opera-synopses/ezio to http://www.handelhouse.org/discover/george-frideric-handel/opera-synopses/ezio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)