Talk:Trois Chansons (Ravel)

Requested move 7 March 2019

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The result of the move request was: Nominator withdrawn. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Trois Chansons (Ravel) → Trois Chansons – "Trois Chansons" is unambiguous on English Wikipedia. None of the other topics on Three Songs is referred to in English as "Trois Chansons". WP:PRECISION (and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines) JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and perhaps we should have a general discussion on project Classical music. Trois Chansons just means Three Songs, a numeral and a generic name (unless it's a truely primary topic, but can't think of one right now). I suggest we never use such a construction for a unique title. I redirected the page Trois Chanson to 3 Songs, where I found a few Spanish ones, and added a few German and French ones. There could be more in both languages, especially if we include - as the Spanish entries do - something like "Trois Chansons Populaires" and "Trois chansons d'amour". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  That suggestion does not pass WP:PRECISION, so the discussion to vary from that policy would need to have consensus at that level, not a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here or at the Classical Music guidelines. "Trois Chansons" is currently unambiguous on English Wikipedia and so does not currently need a disambiguating qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Do I have to write another Trois chansons article to make that change? The title in these cases isn't really Trois Chansons but 3 Chansons, and don't tell me that Chansons is primary topic for any composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  One more: the primary meaning of Chansons is what singers like Aznavour and Brel produced, - it's an ambiguous word from the beginning, and the addition of a well-known classical composer's name helps identifying what kind of chansons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  "Trois Chansons" is not currently ambiguous on Engish Wikipedia. If you or anyone else later introduces ambiguity by writing an article on another topic whose article could be titled "Trois Chansons", then one or both of them may need a qualifier. But no one has to do so. If the title of M 69 isn't Trois Chansons, please correct the information throughout this article (and likely elsewhere on Wikipedia), but the sources appear to disagree with that claim. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  The title is Trois Chansons, which means 3 songs, and several systems disregard the numeral as part of the title, and only by that is it Trois Chansons, - it would be Trois chansons otherwise, Chansons is only capital because it's the first real word. (I had that wrong first.) See 3 Chansons (Ravel, Maurice): Scores at the International Music Score Library Project --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment see also how there is a primary topic for Trois cœurs even though there is ambiguity at Three Hearts (disambiguation) and a different primary topic for Three Hearts. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't like that primary topic. Have no idea if a book, a play, a tv series, and no time to look. Jacques Loussier died, and I think he should be on Recent deaths, - that absorbs much of my time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The title is not supposed to be the article. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles that I have no idea if they're about a book, play, etc., just from the title, and that's okay -- the article content, and indeed the lede sentence, is the place to convey that information. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  When I read a title like "Rigoletto" I know it's a specific piece, that's okay. "Trois Chansons" is generic, see below, 3 piano concertos analogy. It's not a good title, no matter if a Debussy or whatever article exists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support, none of the other options seem likely to be confused, and a hatnote solves the rare cases where there is confusion. A generic name even in English can sometimes have a primary meaning, and a generic name in another language can very easily just mean one thing in English - an English-reader searching for Le Monde is obviously interested in the newspaper, not Earth. SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Until recently, we had an article Sarabandes pointing at one person's composition. It was corrected, the former Sarabandes are now Sarabandes (Satie). Here, I tried to do it right from the start. Generic names, whether with a numeral in front or not, don't make good unique titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  Trois Chansons (Debussy) - I guess we can't say Ravel's a primary compared to Debussy's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  If the redlink you made for the Debussy piece is filled out and it turns out there's enough material to support an article equivalent to this one, maybe, since sure, Debussy is known. As things stand, the other two composers who made something called "Trois Chansons" are incredibly minor in Benjamin C. S. Boyle & Jean Martinon. Basically, no need for pre-emptive disambiguation, even for "generic" names. (e.g. 25 Scottish Songs (Beethoven) and the like should probably be moved too if they aren't actually disambiguating anything.) SnowFire (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  I wish you had responded to the Satie case, and the problem to assign a generic name to one composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  The Satie case sounds like it turned out fine? I agree that Sarabandes should redirect to Sarabande. I'm just saying that if there is some hypothetical piece of music called SomeSongName, it should be at SomeSongName by default. If there are two Wikipedia articles it could refer to - not merely the existence of other possible uses of the term that don't have their own Wikipedia article - then sure, move it to a disambiguator. If I wrote "Piano Concerto No. 954" and it's a big hit, just call it that unless there's some other article by that name. SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  The analogy is wrong, sorry. Piano Concerto No. 954 would be a fine unique name. The proposal, however, would rather compare to Three Piano Concertos, which I'd redirect to Piano Concerto, the general article. It's unspecific. If Trois Chansons was a piece by Mozart, the (well-known) K. number would make it unique. The numbers for Ravel's works are not well-known, more for musicologists, so not so useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Gerda Arendt: Since the Debussy article has been created and is more than a stub, I've removed my support for this move. That said, I stand by the general principle against pre-emptive disambiguation. If "Three Piano Concertos" only refers to one piece of music, it should do that; no reader interested in in "Piano Concerto" in general would search for it by inputting "Three Piano Concertos" any more than somebody interested in royalty would put in Three Kings attempting to find the article King (rather than the actual redirect, to Biblical Magi). SnowFire (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gerda Arendt's arguments. Debussy has a piece of the same title and he's an well-known composer just like Ravel. Trois Chansons (Debussy) could easily be an article and pass notability tests; it uses the poetry of Charles, Duke of Orléans and has numerous sources that exist on Google, as well as the scholarly journals on jstor: Debussy's "Trois Chansons" An Analysis, The Choral Music of Debussy and Ravel (which actually compares and contrasts both of these Trois Chansons). Once that article is created, then another argument would start over who should have the primary topic/disambiguation... when it fact, it should be 3 Songs, which serves that purpose. oncamera 00:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I went ahead and created Trois Chansons (Debussy). However, a naming style for these types of composition should continued to be discussed. oncamera 09:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Gerda Arendt's arguments. Exactly Debussy has a piece of the same title and he's an well-known composer just like Ravel. " is unambiguous on English Wikipedia" is irrelevant as an argument because it isn't unambiguous. Readers of English wikipedia live in the real universe which is not limited by what subjects have standalone titles created by volunteer editors. Apart from Debussy, Lord Berners and Gabriel Pierné also have "Trois Chansons". In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  It is relevant as an argument since it is the Wikipedia consensus, even though you disagree with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per arguments above. But also please note that IMSLP lists many other Trois Chansons by composers including Liszt, Stravinsky, Honegger, Ibert, Pierné, Florent Schmitt.....so I really think this proposal is an absolute non-starter.--Smerus (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
• Withdraw the request now that the Debussy article has been created. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.