Talk:Triple Concerto No. 2

Untitled

See page move discussion at Talk:Triple Concerto No. 2 (Smirnov)#Requested move 11 May 2020

Page layout

I tried this layout – any problems with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer your layout, Francis. The problem I see with all versions is that nobody would call Bach's work his Triple Concerto No. 2. Beethoven at least wrote a piece referred to as his Triple Concerto, but nothing with a number Triple Concerto Nr. 1 (Beethoven). The whole dab rests on little to disambiguate to start with, and your version, Francis, at least explains that. Nobody will arrive here. It could just be a redirect to Triple concerto, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Re. "nobody would call Bach's work his Triple Concerto No. 2" – incorrect: this source does.

Re. Beethoven's: this source calls Beethoven's WoO Unv 5 his "... second Triple Concerto ..." – which, as an incomplete work, is, let's say, quite unknown, and even not the only name used for that work (in Wikipedia's list of Beethoven compositions it is called "Concertante"). But the name is used, and someone might be looking for it, as I did the first time I heard about the work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Re. "Triple Concerto Nr. 1 (Beethoven)" – if a composer composes two instances of the same genre, and one of these instances is mostly forgotten, then the one that is best known does not usually have a number in its article title, e.g.:

• Cello Concerto (Dvořák) – not Cello Concerto No. 2 (Dvorak)
• Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) – not Violin Concerto No. 2 (Mendelssohn) ... this one doesn't even have a redirect currently.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from a few exceptions, I see no reasons for even redirects Triple Concerto No. 2 (Bach) and similar Beethoven. The key question seems to be: Is any second piece in a genre that composer's "genre No. 2 (composer)", or do these names, genre + number, need to be mentioned in several serious sources? I really don't know. If you are right, assuming the former, your version is better, - if not, we should not even disambiguate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If it exists, it can be on a disambiguation page, while someone might be looking for it. That's different from article titles, even for redirects: if it's a common variant spelling it should have a redirect – exceptional name variants don't always have a redirect (while in that case a disambiguation page may be more effective). E.g. the Piano Concerto No. 1 disambiguation page lists Concerto in F (Gershwin) and Piano Concerto (Grieg) – Nonetheless, neither Piano Concerto No. 1 (Gershwin) nor Piano Concerto No. 1 (Grieg) exist as redirects to these respective articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How does it improve on the version that follows WP:MOSDAB? That is, why should those rules be ignored here? Why does it need a link in the lede sentence, since there's no primary topic? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I can see many readers having no idea what triple concerto means, and others having no idea what No. 2 means, - why not explain even if the holy MoS doesn't request it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And how do such readers end up on this page? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

And subsequently, how do the usual arrangement not serve such readers? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from the above that I believe we don't need this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yep, but given its existence, it's not an article to inform readers, but a navigation page to get them to articles with the information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, the layout I proposed conforms to WP:MOSDAB. It even fits the MOSDAB guidance better than the current version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For clarity: IF we need this article, I support your layout. (I still think making this a redirect to triple concerto, which readers may search for, with these 3 pieces pieces appearing - there are really not that many at all - might be the better option.)

And for clarity: the layout you proposed has a link in the lede sentence, uses a template for circa, and puts the year of Smirnov's work in parentheses after the composer (where a birth/death year would go). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)