Talk:List of 17th-century chaconnes

Breaking up the list

I agree with Trappist the Monk that this list of 17th-century chaconnes, constructed by me, is enormous and that it benefits from being broken into sections. Broken into sections it is easier to navigate and to edit. However, having it be one whole table also offers benefits, such as that a single sorting action can group together all of the 17th-century chaconnes written by the same composer, or all of the 17th-century chaconnes found on one compact disk. Fortunately, there is a way to have the list be both broken into sections and be one whole table, which offers both sets of benefits at the same time. That is the way I had it originally and the way I have restored it now. 18thCHist (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. I have changed it however so that at least (I think) it looks better.

I have also begun to simplify the references column. There is no need to repeat each reference in whole – Hudson appears some 50 times in the list. I have given an example in the first two decades of how that works. I propose to continue that and then make the table unsortable by references since §Bibliography is already sorted by author name.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the table as a whole now looks better. The references are also better in the simplified form you have established. Thank you for the improvements. 18thCHist (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

d', de, von, etc

This series of edits is, I think, not quite right. These prepositions aren't part of a person's forename in the same way that James is part of John Audubon's forename. The prepositions are commonly dropped when referring to to a person by last name von Goethe is Goethe, de Chambonnières is Chambonnières, etc. But, as far a I know, which admittedly isn't all that far, when formally stated as we are doing here, the prepositions belong with the surname and not as they are now with the forename.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "nobiliary particle" (French, "particule nobiliaire"; German, "Adelsprädikat") in a nobleman or noblewoman's name is sometimes included in the surname. However, in alphabetical lists of names the more common current authoritative usage is to place the nobiliary particle at the end of the forenames, even in the somewhat clunky case of "d'". That's how it's done, for example, on the International Music Score Library Project website, the destination of many of the links on this list. For an authoritative book example, "Webster's New Biographical Dictionary" also follows that procedure. For practical purposes, it's much easier in scanning down a list not to have intermittent appearances of "de," "von," etc. interfering with the alphabetical order of the names. I admit that there is no definitive standard regarding this issue. "The Chicago Manual of Style," 16th ed. (2010), writes: "Indexing names with particles. In alphabetizing family names containing particles, the indexer must consider the individual's personal preference (if known) as well as traditional and national usages. 'Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary' is an authoritative guide for well-known persons long deceased. . . . Charles de Gaulle is good exmple of the opportunity for occasional editorial discretion: 'Webster's' and the Library of Congress, for example, list the French statesman under 'Gaulle'; the entry in 'American Heritage' is under 'de Gaulle'--the usage normally preferred by Chicago." The problem gets worse for famous people of the Italian Renaissance, who are often known by their first names. "Webster's New Biographical Dictionary" lists Leonardo da Vinci under "Leonardo." 18thCHist (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography

The first entry of the bibliography, listed under the name of the author, "Anglebert, Jean-Henri d'," refers to a book, not to a website page. The parenthesis "(Anglebert, Jean-Henri d')" does not appear in the title of the book, so I would like to leave it out of the title in the bibliographic entry, pleae. The book was published in 1689, not in 2011, so I would like to have the year of publication listed as "1689," please. That date is not given in the book itself, but was determined from information external to the book, so according to standard bibliographic practice, the date should appear in square brackets. It so happens that the book is available in a photographic reproduction on a page of the International Music Score Library Project website, so a link to that website page is appropriate, but that does not mean that bibliographic entry, which, again, refers to the book, should be changed in any way, with the exception of the insertion of the link. 18thCHist (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Before my first edit to this page, there were five D'Anglebert items listed, four of which had this reference:

[http://imslp.org/wiki/Pi%C3%A8ces_de_clavecin_%28Anglebert,_Jean-Henri_d%27%29 International Music Score Library Project]

Clearly a link to a website page. I later made this edit and converted the above website link to a Citation Style 1 with {{harvnb}} short-form links from the four items in the table. Because the website is not a book I chose {{cite web}}. Because the original references in the table were to a website, I set the title to be the title of the web page linked in the original references. I set the date to 2011 because on that web page is a link to a facsimile scan of the book that was done in 2011. I set the original year date to 1689 because that is the date listed as first publication. I set website to link to Wikipedia's International Music Score Library Project article and also to identify the name of the linked web site.

With this edit you changed the content of |last= and |first=. This broke the links from the items in the table because now the names no longer matched.

Here, you changed from {{cite web}} to {{cite book}}. This version of the citation is flawed in a couple of ways: the inclusion of a wiki-formatted external link in |title= corrupts the citation's COinS metadata. It is for this reason that CS1 citations have the |url= parameter. When rendered, the extraneous square brackets around 1689 in |origyear=[1689] combine with the brackets provided by the template to create a wikilinked version of the date – such linking is generally discouraged – and breaks the formatting so that the original year date is not rendered wrapped in brackets as it should be.

Then you got rid of |origyear= and assigned the still bracketed 1689 to |date=. Module:Citation/CS1, the engine that underlies CS1 citations, expects dates in date-holding parameters to be dates. Extraneous text is detected as an error and because it is not a valid date, CS1 does not include the year portion of it in the citation's CITEREF anchor. The CITEREF anchor is used by the {{harvnb}} family of templates as a link destination. So now the links to the citation from the table are again broken.

You changed the {{harvnb}} templates and then changed from |last=, |first=, |authorlink= to wikilinking them all together in |last=. The new version of the {{harvnb}} templates want to link to an anchor labeled CITEREFAnglebert.5B1689.5D but, because of the new name and invalid date, the citation's anchor is CITEREFAnglebert.2C_Jean-Henri_d.27.

I restored the {{harvnb}} templates and changed the citation. I restored |title= to the name of the web page and the date to that of the facsimile scan in keeping with the original reference for D'Anglebert's works.

In a series of three edits you changed the title away from the website's title and put the brackets back in |date=, again breaking the link from the table to the citation.

And there it sits.

With CS1, the only way to show dates wrapped in square brackets is to use |origyear= but, that requires that you also provide a new date using |date=. It has been ever thus.

Perhaps this:

{{harvnb|Anglebert|2011|p=}}

and

{{cite book |last=Anglebert |first=Jean-Henri d' |authorlink=Jean-Henri d'Anglebert |title=Pièces De Clavecin |url=http://conquest.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/8/82/IMSLP110970-PMLP43812-D_Anglebert_-_Pieces_de_Clavecin__1689_.pdf |format=pdf |type=facsimile |date=2011 |origyear=1689 |location=Paris |publisher=auteur |via=''[[International Music Score Library Project]]'' |ref=harv}}

where the links in the table render as:

Anglebert 2011

and the citation renders as:

Anglebert, Jean-Henri d' (2011) [1689]. Pièces De Clavecin (pdf) (facsimile). Paris: auteur – via International Music Score Library Project. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I don't particularly care if you want to change the citation to refer to a book instead of a website (as long as you have in fact used the book as your source). I do care when accusations of wrongdoing arise because of repairs I made to an obviously broken citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), p. 727, says this: "Books consulted online. When citing the online version of a book, include the URL--or, if available, DOI--as part of the citation. The URL or DOI should be the last part of a full citation based on the principles outlined throughout this section on citing books." Several examples are given, including this one: "Antokoletz, Elliot. Musical Symbolism in the Operas of Debussy and Bartok. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/978015365825.001.0001."

Following that method, the Anglebert entry in this bibliography would read: "Anglebert, Jean-Henri d' ([1689]). Pièces de clavecin. Paris: auteur. http://imslp.org/wiki/Pièces_de_clavecin_(Anglebert,_Jean-Henri_d')." There could be a link on the author's name to his biography in Wikipedia and a link on the URL to the book in the International Music Score Library Project.

Would that be acceptable to you? 18thCHist (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to force one system to obey the rules of another system. Citation Style 1 is not The Chicago Manual of Style, never has been, never will be. CS1 is an amalgam of a variety of style guides including parts of Chicago. Chicago's Antokoletz example using CS1 renders like this:

Antokoletz, Elliot (2008). Musical Symbolism in the Operas of Debussy and Bartok. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195365825.001.0001.

Quite similar with the exception of the date placement.

Wikipedia is not a print medium so rules that apply in print, don't necessarily apply here. Here, URLs are considered ugly; they are difficult to read, more so when they are lengthy and contain characters not normally seen in English text. In CS1 we apply those URLs to appropriate human readable title parameters to hide the URL and to identify the destination addressed by the URL. The Chicago-styled D'Anglebert citation is, for these reasons, not an acceptable citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), p. 753, says this: "Citations of website content. For original content from online sources other than the types of formally published documents discussed elsewhere in this chapter, include as much of the following as can be determined: the title of a description of the page, the author of the content (if any), the owner or sponsor of the site, and a URL. Also include a publication date or date of revision or modification; if no such date can be determined, include an access date."

My understanding of these directions, along with other, more standard bibliographic practices, would make the Anonymous entry in this bibliography read: "Anonymous (2014). Willis, Tim, ed. "Chiaccona in C major." International Music Score Library Project. http://imslp.org/wiki/Chiaccona_in_C_major_(Anonymous)." Again, there could be a link on the URL.

Would that be acceptable to you?

The title could also be given as: "Chiaccona á 3. 2 Violini è Viola. Nr. 63 aus dem Parititurbuch Ludwig, 1662," since that is the title on the document itself, rather than the title on the website page.

Would that be acceptable to you?

Finally, The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010), p. 458, says this: "Websites and web pages. General titles of websites mentioned or cited in text or notes are normally set in roman, headline-style, without quotation marks." Thus, International Music Score Library Project is not italicized.

18thCHist (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are trying to force one system to obey the rules of another system. In CS1, website names and web pages are roughly analogous to book title and chapter title. In Wikipedia book titles are in italics, chapter titles upright and quoted. So it is with websites and web pages in CS1: website names are italicized, web page titles are upright and quoted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what CS1 is, but would be happy to be directed to it and to learn about it. In the meantime, I accept its prescription, and your wish, to have website names italicized and website page names put in quotation marks. The Chicago Manual of Style agrees that website page names should be put in quotation marks.

You didn't answer my questions about whether you would accept bibliography entries for this article in the formats I proposed, based on my understanding of the prescriptions in The Chicago Manual of Style. Therefore, I will proceed to modify the bibliography entries according to my proposals, working on the assumption that you accept them. Of course that assumption of mine may be wrong, and of course you are still free to challenge my formatting, in which case we can discuss it further. 18thCHist (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

CS1 is Citation Style 1. I linked to it above. It is used on more than 2.4 million Wikipedia articles. I'm pretty sure that I did answer your questions when I wrote that you are trying to force one system to obey the rules of another system.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia has a section called "Wikipedia: Manual of Style" that encompasses several or many website pages. Its page on bibliography formatting prescribes the same formatting as does The Chicago Manual of Style for the types of works in this "List of 17th-century Chaconnes" bibliography. 18thCHist (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to where MOS says that?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Manual of Style says this about italicization of website names: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Based on this presciption, it is ambiguous whether or not one should italicize International Music Score Library Project. I will leave it italicized. Some other names of websites referenced in this bibliography, such as Mateus Lutes, appear not to call for italicization. 18thCHist (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the International Music Score Library Project uses roman type, not italics, whenever it mentions the name of that website. I'm going to do that in this article, too. 18thCHist (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. I've given up on you. You have rejected almost everything that I have tried to contribute. You have taken a perfectly good, working citation system, and made a mess of it. When I asked you to show me where in MOS it prescribes the same [bibliographic] formatting as ... The Chicago Manual of Style, you declined to answer. I'm done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)