Wikipedia

Talk:Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by MSGJ in topic Requested move 3 May 2019
Learn more about this page

Requested move 24 April 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
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 as proposed. It does appear that there may be sufficient support for an alternative move, but the page Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) was not tagged (in Talk) of the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also sprach Zarathustra (disambiguation) → Also sprach Zarathustra – Original works often win out at WP:PTOPIC, and for good reason, though exceptions do exist (e.g. The Godfather). That said, what we have here is a bit of a special case. There is the original work Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and then Richard Strauss wrote a very famous symphonic work after it, Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss). What's notable here is that the book is mostly referred to by its English title in the course of English text, whereas the symphonic work is primarily referred to by its German title. Since this is the English Wikipedia and we should follow English usage, I argue that the book is not the primary topic for its German title. Indeed, a majority of English Google results for "Also sprach Zarathustra" are on the symphonic work. There is precedent for having different primary topics based on linguistic differences between synonyms, e.g. Dialog vs. Dialogue, or Saint Louis vs. St. Louis. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Support as proposed, the move as stated per nom is beneficial to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Strongly oppose countermove by DohnJoe and Born2cycle: that countermove move is not beneficial to either literature readers or classical music readers. "Also sprach Zarathustra was" test in Google Books clearly shows ambiguity, we can see the results going Nietzsche, Strauss, Strauss, Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Strauss, Nietzsche... WP:NOPRIMARY In ictu oculi (talk) 07:30, 25 April 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.

Requested move 3 May 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments13 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is strong consensus that in English the Strauss version is the primary topic. Option C described below is implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply


– Copy-pasting my rationale from above:

Original works often win out at WP:PTOPIC, and for good reason, though exceptions do exist (e.g. The Godfather). That said, what we have here is a bit of a special case. There is the original work Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and then Richard Strauss wrote a very famous symphonic work after it, Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss). What's notable here is that the book is mostly referred to by its English title in the course of English text, whereas the symphonic work is primarily referred to by its German title. Since this is the English Wikipedia and we should follow English usage, I argue that the book is not the primary topic for its German title. Indeed, a majority of English Google results for "Also sprach Zarathustra" are on the symphonic work. There is precedent for having different primary topics based on linguistic differences between synonyms, e.g. Dialog vs. Dialogue, or Saint Louis vs. St. Louis.

To make it easier to determine consensus this time, I will designate three options:

Please indicate your full set of preferences, to make clear what you can live with and what is utterly unacceptable to you. Mine are B > C > A. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 17:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Option A. I oppose a move of this composition by Strauss to the primary topic. We would make it look as if Strauss created it, while his music is just a derived work of instrumental music, not even using the words. I'd move it to Nietzsches work (Option D?): Nietzsche coined the title, he wrote the words, and both in German, not in English. The current, at least a redirect to his work, works for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Option B - since there's a debate on whether C or A are primary, it seems to me like there isn't a primary topic - they're both equally primary. I'm fine with any though, idk. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • C, for the reasons stated in the previous RM. Dohn joe (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • C because, in English, the Strauss work is the primary topic for "Also sprach Zarathustra" per page views noted above. I will add "per WP:GOOGLE" as well, since a Google search for "Also sprach Zarathustra" is dominated by Strauss related results, and nothing about Nietzsche. And putting the Strauss work at the base name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not suggest Strauss created the title; it just reflects the fact that most people searching with "also sprach zarathustra" are looking for the Strauss work. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • A > B > C. There's a weirdness to putting a derivative work at the original title and the original work at a translated title. It seems confusing. Also, we don't even make Gone with the Wind (film) the primary topic over the novel, so there is no need to give Strauss's tone poem that prominence. Srnec (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Option C per Necrothesp, Dohn joe and В²C. This nomination should be considered on its own merits and not necessarily analogous to other similar title harmonizations. In the English-speaking world, there are definitely two major titles which serve as primary topics — one in English translation (Nietzsche) and the other in German (Strauss). Other cases present different resolutions — If Macbeth (opera) were titled Macbet (as in the poster for its premiere in 1847) or if Falstaff (opera) were known by some Italianate version of the name, such as Falstaffio, in the manner of Otello, which is a standalone title for the opera, not a redirect to Othello, then such major operas would not take qualifiers in deference to the Shakespeare originals, but would stand as separate entries with hatnotes directing to appropriate disambiguation pages. On the other hand, a minor black-and-white TV broadcast of The Pearl Fishers (film), even though it is the sole Wikipedia entry bearing this exact title, receives the qualifier "(film)", while the name redirects to Les pêcheurs de perles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • In none of your examples does a derivative work get the original title, as in proposal C. Also sprach Zarathustra is the title of Nietzsche's book. It has more than one possible translation, although one is predominant. It is better for readers not to confuse this, just add Strauss to the hatnote at the book. Srnec (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    The circumstances in this case are admittedly rare, but justified due to the overwhelming renown of the Strauss work. Any uncertainties would be resolved by hatnotes atop both articles. I would also support Option B as my second choice per Necrothesp and you. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Example that does reflect C: The Godfather. FWIW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Option C - The German title is most used for the Strauss work in English. That this separates Nietsche's work from the title he used is odd, but irrelevant. His work is primarily known in English by the translated title. All other options are rejected. --Khajidha (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • B > C > A, i.e. I prefer B, but C is better than the status quo. Google Books results show a mix of uses to the point that neither seems primary. —  AjaxSmack  22:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I would assume that all A supporters would prefer B to C, and all C supporters would prefer B to A (correct me if I'm wrong). Given that, I think at this point C is the most liked (i.e. plurality) option, while B is the least disliked (i.e. compromise) option. However, the difficulty of choosing between B and C should be no reason to preserve the status quo, as B and C are both in the same direction (i.e. expressing the view that Strauss is, at the very least, not less deserving of the title than Nietzsche). If a significant number of C > A > B !voters existed, that would lend more credence to A, but as it stands I think B is clearly preferred over A. Deciding between B and C will come down to whether the arguments for C or the arguments for not-C are stronger. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Good summary. And the arguments for C were in the previous RM, referenced in this discussion, regarding the primary topic. After all, that's what we're talking about between B and C, whether this article's topic is primary for "Also sprach Zarathustra" in English. I think that argument was well made. --В²C ☎ 23:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • C > B > A, In the English language, I agree that the German name must the primary topic for the composition (C). However, I understand the consensus for making no primary topic (B), and I believe that A should not be an option per rationale that exceptions should be made for notable derivative works like The Godfather, though that would be a different story if its derivation changed the language of the title, as should be here. Lazz_R 21:02, 11 May 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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Also_sprach_Zarathustra_(disambiguation)&oldid=1252688331"