Talk:La donna serpente (opera)

Is the opera or the fable primary?

@In ictu oculi:, don't you think this opera, La donna serpente (opera), is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for La donna serpente, which should be at the base name? I realize it is based on the fable La donna serpente, but which is more likely to be sought by a WP user? --В²C ☎ 19:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please see the article; i.e. Wagner. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that suggests the fable is more likely to be sought than the opera. --В²C ☎ 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be honest, had you ever heard of either before today? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's why I'm asking you. From what I see here, the opera seems much more likely to be an article/topic sought by a user. No? --В²C ☎ 19:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you have no interest in either subject, your interest is in me? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you know my main interest on WP is in titles and title stability. See my user page. --В²C ☎ 18:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 January 2019

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Although the opera is based on the play, the opera is far more famous as far as I can tell, and therefore much more likely to be sought by anyone. So I think the opera is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the play should be disambiguated to make room for the opera at the undisambiguated base name. В²C ☎ 21:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The play article does come up first in a Google search followed by the opera article. Both articles are newly created so page views don't work. The only other evidence I can think of is that the opera is based on the play (as noted) which favours the status quo and that the opera has an article on 2 other WPs (noting the expand German tag) which favours treating the opera as primary. Unless there is clearer evidence that the opera is primary, I'd opt to keep things as they are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I prefer to have consistently the original work without disambiguation, and the derived work with one. We do that for Bach's chorale cantatas, where some chorales are possibly less prominent than the cantatas based on them, but we still consistently add the BWV number to the cantatas. This was discussed at Project Classical Music. - Opera: I bet that Lohengrin the opera is more "famous" than the hero Lohengrin, but still the derived work has the disambiguation. Much easier than to stare at click numbers which may change over time. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Also: I understand Gozzi's work is a fable. Is it even a play? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original first sentence in the article about the fable/play was: "La donna serpente is a fable by Carlo Gozzi which premiered at the Teatro Sant'Angelo, Venice, in 1762.". I changed "fable" to "play". How can a fable that is not a play premier at a theater? As to "preferring" the original work without disambiguation, we are encouraged to "prefer" topics which are most likely to be sought by our users. --В²C ☎ 22:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the Bach consistency over some 40 works, without having to look at fame for each individual one. About a merge (below): how would you write the lead? We send people to the Gozzi from Die Feen, who might find it confusing to arrive at an opera. Or do you suggest to merge it all into Wagner's opera? I prefer unmixed categories and articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we're unhelpful to our readers by ignoring likelihood of being sought in our arrangement of titles for Bach's works does not justify being just as unhelpful with these titles. I oppose the merge as I can't defend it. --В²C ☎ 18:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both articles are really short, short enough so that a person won't really have to dig to find the info she wants. And the subjects are closely related, a person searching on one would in many cases benefit by having the info on the other at her fingertips. Herostratus (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: I think everyone here is aware that these are freshly minted stubs and that stubs request editors contribute by expansion. The three versions of the story, Gozzi's original, Wagner's better known setting and Casella's less known setting, are substantially different in plot and even the names of the husband and wife are different in all three versions. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK. I wasn't. Well, is there enough sourced material out there to expand the articles? Herostratus (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Herostratus. It's not like the story is different. Timmyshin (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would a merge deal with each article's categories?

Put it both I guess. I believe that's how we generally handle articles that cover multiple topics. Herostratus (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Both articles describe different topics and could be much expanded. They also have different wikidata items. --Rodomonte (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Per the above; the two topics are not fungible. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the Casella opera remains less known than Wagner's Die Feen which is based on the same fable. The suggestion to merge Gozzi's fiaba with the less well known of the two operas based on it is unhelpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- And all in all what a massive timewaste. The bytes expended already on this pointless and disruptive RM could have been spent actually improving encyclopedia coverage and content. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or... next time you create an article try to take into account community consensus about title selection more than you did this time. The relative popularity of Die Feen is irrelevant here since it's not commonly known as "La donna serpente", nor likely to be sought with that term. This is something you should know. So, what matters is how relatively likely the play/fable and opera are to be sought by our readers, a consideration you apparently gave no thought whatsoever, which is why we're here. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opera is not better known than the fable. There have only been very few productions. The fable is at least known through the Wagner opera. --Rodomonte (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per In ictu oculi. And I agree about the timewaste.--Smerus (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IIO. Omnedon (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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