Those marked with a ** are currently listed as genres in this template; the others are not. Can anyone explain a rationale for the difference?
I would argue for the more-inclusive list. There have been numerous attempts to categorize the world of opera, I don't think there is a clear division that is widely accepted. It is better to admit the longer list, and if a particular item is controversial, note the controversy in the article itself, in a way that preserves NPOV. Marc Shepherd18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of articles not categories.
For that reason the first criteria for selection is the existence of an article not a category.
Specifically:
Gilbert and Sullivan sub-category: G&S are already covered (as you know quite well) by Savoy Opera. It is a basic policy on WP not to duplicate. (Arthur Sullivan is only one of about 400 composers we cover.)
Operetta sub-category **
Ballad opera **
Bel canto: Covered under opera terms (see infobox) This is a style of singing not a genre of opera. See the article. It says Bel canto (Belcanto, bel canto) (Italian, beautiful singing) is an Italian musical term.
Comic opera: As agreed by you (Marc Shepherd) this is not a genre.
Dramma giocoso **
Fantasy opera: Not a real genre (as per comic opera), and not notable either (it's a rare term). The article is poor and hardly worth linking to.
French lyric tragedy: This is a one sentence stub. It's actually categorized (following Grove) under Tragédies en musique (aka Tragedies lyriques) which has not been written up as an article. It's a legitimate genre. Someone should write it up.
Grand Opera **
Género chico **
Opera ballet: Unfortunately the article is about ballet. In this case ballets de cour, not the opera genre called Opéra-ballet which is a combination of the two. (See Elizabeth Bartlet in Grove).
Opera buffa **
Opera electronica: Notable? It's not one of the 76 genres listed by Grove. The article is short.
Opera seria **
Opéra comique **
Savoy opera **
Science fiction operas: Just a list. No description of this as a stylistic genre. Notability? It's not one of the 76 genres listed by Grove
Semi-opera **
Singspiel **
Verismo **
Zarzuela **
As you can now see demonstrated, the items included were all the main ones. They were not a biased or random selection. They were not a selection at all. I hope you will retract the unsubstantiated comments you made on the 'Comic Opera' Talk page. So far your exercise has failed to added one major new item.
You have spent the past several days writing to Talk pages (here and at Comic opera). I strongly advise to pick up some books and start researching the subject and writing actual articles that will benefit Wikipedia. The genre articles are imperfect and undeveloped. You could be improving them. - Kleinzach20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, I've spent dozens of hours over the last several weeks researching, creating, and adding to various articles. Not unlike most people, I write where I feel I have the expertise, ability, time, and passion to make a useful contribution. I wouldn't insinuate that someone isn't contributing unless I actually had a basis for it. The fact that I respond on a talk page doesn't mean that's my main activity at Wikipedia.
For the record, I still believe that comic opera is as much a "genre" as the motley assortment of types listed here. However, I was happy to reword the lead sentence of the comic opera page, because a definition everyone can accept is better than a definition that is in controversy.
Let's not backtrack. We have already dealt with the issue of the definition of Comic opera. What I would like you to do now is withdraw your criticism that I made an implicitly biased and partial selection of articles for the opera genre infobox, that by implication that I tried to impose my personal taste. By now you must know that this is not true. - Kleinzach21:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
