Talk:List of oratorios
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Question edit
I've noticed that the descriptions of some of the oratorios listed here use the word "composed". Why? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's because I don't have the date for the premiere. Their articles only give the date of composition. Some entries say things like "recorded 1990" when they appear to have only been performed on record. I put "Unless otherise indicated, all dates are those when the work was first performed" in the lede. But perhaps there's a better way of handling this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Premieres can be covered in individual articles. Dates of composition are far more important here, and it's always been that way in lists of compositions on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- On WikiProject Opera, we use dates of premieres rather than composition unless there is a big discrepancy [1]. Plus, many of the articles for these oratorios give only the dates of the premiere. I have no objection to changing it to date of composition being the default, provided the ones that don't have such a date are annotated with the premiere. Alternatively, you could add both date of composition and date of premiere to each entry. Perhaps ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not an oratorio fan, yet off the top of my head I know a couple of cases (Elias for one) where the date of composition completion is significantly different from the premiere performance (i.e. situations where the composer amended things after the first performance). Is it overkill to include both? -- kosboot (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say the more information the better. I just knocked this together today, as I thought there was a need for it. (See my comments as Talk:Oratorio.) I'm hoping others will develop it, as I.m not a big oratorio fan either. I think it's a good idea to add both dates of composition and dates of premiere, especially if there is any discrepancy, and significant revisions, as long as its clear to the reader what each date is for. Voceditenore (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not an oratorio fan, yet off the top of my head I know a couple of cases (Elias for one) where the date of composition completion is significantly different from the premiere performance (i.e. situations where the composer amended things after the first performance). Is it overkill to include both? -- kosboot (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- On WikiProject Opera, we use dates of premieres rather than composition unless there is a big discrepancy [1]. Plus, many of the articles for these oratorios give only the dates of the premiere. I have no objection to changing it to date of composition being the default, provided the ones that don't have such a date are annotated with the premiere. Alternatively, you could add both date of composition and date of premiere to each entry. Perhaps ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Premieres can be covered in individual articles. Dates of composition are far more important here, and it's always been that way in lists of compositions on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Theodora date must be wrong edit
Elsewhere, Theodora is dated as 1750. This is more likely to be right as this is famously a late work by Handel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanTheGrumpy (talk • contribs) 21:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
It's listed as anime on the composer's, Hayato Matsuo's page, presumably it's background music? AndrewTeal (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of oratorios. 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/20120729022004/http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/02/09/art21.asp to http://www.dailynews.lk/2011/02/09/art21.asp
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 04:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)