Talk:Ogives

Article name

This article should be moved over the REDIRECT at Ogives because that is the title of the work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Following the notice above, which didn't elicit any comments, I moved the page accordingly and fixed the resulting double REDIRECT and other related articles. Without any discussion, the article was then moved back to "Ogive (music)" and most of my edits were reverted.

I think the name "Ogive (music)" is wrong for several reasons:

1. The name of the work is Ogives as shown in Erik Satie, List of compositions by Erik Satie, and "Le Gymnopédiste", the reference listed in the article.
2. If the article name "Ogives" should need any disambiguation qualifier (it doesn't), it should be "(Satie"), not "(music)"; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force#Title.
3. All existing links except for the one coming from Pieces in a Modern Style (for obvious reasons) use "Ogives".

As for reverting my edits:

1. The current lead sentence is confusing: "Ogive is one of four …"; this article is about the collection of four pieces and that's what the first sentence should say.
2. There is no point in having wikilinks for the years "1880s" and "1889"; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year linking.
3. The image of Notre Dame is pertinent because it directly relates to the article and to the architectural feature, which is the same for windows, transverse ribs and arches in Gothic architecture; to be sure, I would have preferred an image of a window of Notre Dame but couldn't fined one at Commons.
4. Removing the wikilink for plainsong and pipe organ diminishes the article.
5. The spelling of the section title "Modern Interpretations" contravenes Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings.
6. Removing the wikilink for William Orbit is unhelpful; the related album and film titles need to be italicised according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Italics.
7. The extra blank line before Template:Classical-composition-stub is unnecessary.
8. The current hatnote is a) unhelpful ("physical appearance"?); b) ungrammatical (lower case "for"); c) should use a hatnote template; d) unnecessary.

I suggest to revert the article's move and have it again as "Ogives" and to revert the article to this version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)