Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Francis Schonken in topic Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed

Latest comment: 10 years ago116 comments12 people in discussion

Just as a heads up, somebody has taken it upon himself, as far as I know with no notice to or discussion with this project, to rename all the Schubert piano sonata articles. For example, the former "Piano Sonata in C major, D. 840 (Schubert)" is now titled "Piano sonata in C major "Reliquie" (D. 840)," with no mention of the composer's name. This approach puts the titles for these articles at odds with those for corresponding works by all the other classical composers, or at least all of which I'm aware, and conflicts with the consensus reached here after discussion of the very issue whether to include composer names in titles. (That admittedly was far enough back that finding it will take some digging.) I thought it best to raise the issue here rather than taking reversions into my own hands, although I'll go on record right now as strongly opposing these changes. Drhoehl (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert. Write something on the user's talk page thanking them for their edits, but that they should know such actions should be discussed here first to reach a consensus. -- kosboot (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. No harm redirecting from those names and referring to them in the article texts, but making them the main title needs discussion. I think the names aren't widely used in English. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Including a moniker in the article name is a terrible idea. But dropping the disambiguator "(Schubert)" in articles named "Piano sonata in C-sharp minor (D. 655)" (formerly Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, D. 655 (Schubert)) & similar seems reasonable, although I'm not sure about upper/lower case letters. Then again, the use of an mdash with an additional D number in Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505) is typographically wrong and confusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"such actions should be discussed here first to reach a consensus" I'd be grateful for some evidence to support this assertion, since it's my understanding that such a claim is contrary to standing policy on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

See prior discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table, among others (quoting from that discussion):

follow 4th method of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation: this would give page names like Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570); (Schubert) no longer needed as disambiguator.

(& subsequent sections on that talk page) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being aware of this discussion page, I did however post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force#Scores template --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Francis. There are so many talk pages relevant to music, and few of us would watch all of them. Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert isn't the best place, because it risks making a local consensus that's incompatible with non-Schubert article titles -- which is what has happened. I do think this needs to be reverted and the issues hammered out here. I disagree that (Schubert) is no longer needed as a disambiguator. Sure, the D number makes it unambiguous, but far more people don't know this than do, whereas anyone who would look at a piano sonata article will have heard of Schubert. I share Michael's dislike of the mdash notation, which I find ugly, and imo the subsidiary D numbers and the nicknames are distracting and unnecessary in the titles. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the consensus, the applicable guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music)) should be clear about it. That's of course the first place where one would look, and that's what I did. Note that the names I moved away from were not conforming to that guideline.
Here's what I'd propose:
  1. Have the discussion here what we'd really like to do with the article titles of Schubert's piano sonatas. If someone could find a link to the last discussion on the topic that would be great.
  2. Whatever the outcome of that discussion, it would need to be conforming to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), which means that an update of that guideline would be needed when the outcome of the discussion leads to something different than what is covered by the guideline currently.
  3. Move the pages of the individual sonatas (when different from current naming).
Starting the discussion (step 1), see e.g. the title of this dissertation A Comparative Study on the Published Completions of the Unfinished Movements in Franz Schubert’s Sonata in C Major, D. 840 (“Reliquie”) - meaning: while D. numbers may have recognisability issues and numbering systems for the sonatas are widely divergent, nicknames (for those sonatas that have a well estabilshed nickname) are part of the common name of these sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
[ec] The relevant policy would seem to be Wikipedia:Article titles. Which part of that mandates the inclusion of composer names, in this case? BTW, is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force still needed, if it's not adequately watched? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Andy, Wikipedia:Article titles is the overarching policy, but for specifics it links to the topic-specific conventions. For the present case, that is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), where the position on disambiguation by composer and on the use of nicknames is laid out clearly. --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
(continuing step 1) Looking for prior discussion I couldn't find anything of much consequence in the archives:
Am I missing something here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The thing that's "missing" is the context. One can't talk only about Schubert. Over the years this group has had a number of discussions/controversies concerning naming of groups of works. One big flare up was when someone decided to rename Beethoven's Op. 14, no. 2 "Moonlight" without telling anyone and without considering how other Beethoven sonatas are named. Sure, one can "be bold" and do what one wants, but one has to recognize that there will be a host of other people who will want to do what they want and the only way to agree on something is to discuss it and achieve consensus. -- kosboot (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be Op. 27, No. 2 --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
argh - yes - apologies. -- kosboot (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Other Schubert sonatas (and fantasies)

This is the list of Schubert sonatas not affected by the recent page moves:

  1. Schubert's last sonatas (three sonatas for piano two hands)
  2. Grand Duo (Schubert) (piano four hands)
  3. Arpeggione Sonata (arpeggione + piano, now mostly performed as a cello sonata)
  4. Violin Sonata in A (Schubert) (violin + piano, also sometimes nicknamed "Grand Duo", maybe even without doubt the primary topic for "Grand Duo (Schubert)": ""grand duo" "574"" yields about ten times as many Google finds than ""grand duo" "812"")

Fantasies not affected by the recent page moves (note that also the piano sonata D. 894 was originally published as a Fantasy):

  1. Wanderer Fantasy (piano two hands - formally more a sonata than most of Schubert's early piano sonatas)
  2. Fantasia in F minor (Schubert) (piano four hands)

Among the titles of these six articles I see:

  • One descriptive title (sonatas #1)
  • Two named by moniker/nickname (sonatas #2 and fantasies #1) — I suppose many would also perceive "Arpeggione" as some sort of moniker/nickname, but in fact it isn't.
  • Three using (Schubert) as parenthical disambiguator (sonatas #2 and #4, fantasies #2), "Schubert" also named in the descriptive title of sonatas #1
  • Two naming the key, one shortened ("in A" instead of "in A major" for sonatas #4 - note that Schubert also wrote a violin sonata in A minor (D. 385)) and one regular (fantasies #2)
  • Two different translations of "Fantasie": "Fantasy" (fantasies #1) and "Fantasia" (fantasies #2)
  • Also, surprisingly, none that refer to a D number.

In my eyes improvements to the article title would be called for, at least for sonatas #2 and #4, maybe also fantasies #2. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A conflict in guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Title recommends a standardized naming convention for articles about classical compositions that has been universally followed by the handful of editors that actively write articles on this subject. This standard is not contradictory to the guideline in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music), but it does have different emphasis. It has been discussed frequently, both on the talk pages of articles and at the Compositions forum (which, incidentally, while not superactive is a vital place for discussion of issues like this). The difference in emphasis is this: the project standard (as opposed to the guideline) urges discussion on the talk page before deciding between a standardized name (like String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert)) and a commonly used name (like Death and the Maiden Quartet.

The wisdom of discussing a title on the talk page before making such a decision is palpable. In many cases, names commonly used for pieces were not chosen, and were even opposed by, the composers themselves. Haydn, for example, never gave names to his quartets, even though many of them have descriptive common names. Beethoven would most likely have despised the name Moonlight Sonata, which is the subject of much derision by many critics (the name, not the piece). So, regardless of how common a name, prudence need be exercised before using it as the title of an article.

As for including the composer's name in the title, this too was discussed pretty thoroughly (though for the life of me I can't find the discussion). It was felt that including the composer's name made it easier for readers to find the article. A savvy reader is more likely to look for "Haydn Op. 20" than for "Op. 20", hoping for the best. It wasn't just an issue of disambiguation.

All of this suggests that we should probably make an effort to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) to bring it more in line with the thinking of the project standard. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We should consider series of compositions differently from single works. That alone made Moonlight Sonata impossible, - so I thought ;) - For Bach's cantatas, we use (after discussion) the catalogue number alone as a hint to the composer (example BWV 172), to keep the long titles as simple as possible. We might do something similar for Schubert, using the D numbers which - to my understanding - are unique, but of course add plenty of redirects for the number alone, the key etc., to help readers find what they search for. (I confess that I rarely look at guidelines and naming conventions but learn by trial and error.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
A.k.a the 4th method of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation as mentioned above. That's indeed what I did, after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, following the format of the Sonatas by George Frideric Handel example quoted in the guideline, to the best of my abilities. Using the 23 Sonatas numbering system these are the page moves I performed:
  1. Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major, D. 279 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major, D. 459 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) (a.k.a. Fünf Klavierstucke)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 769a (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E minor (D. 769a)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 537 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 537)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major, D. 557 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A-flat major (D. 557)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 566 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506)
  8. Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568)
  9. ... Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568) (Op. posth. 122, same Wikipedia article as previous)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, D. 571 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major, D. 575 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in B major (D. 575)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor, D. 625 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, D. 655 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C-sharp minor (D. 655)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major, D. 664 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A major (D. 664)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 784 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 784)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major, D. 840 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major "Reliquie" (D. 840)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 845 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 845)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major, D. 850 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in D major "Gasteiner" (D. 850)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major, D. 894 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in G major "Fantasy" (D. 894)
  21. (unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas
  22. (unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas
  23. (unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas
This leaves unsolved:
  • Whether or not to capitalise sonata/Sonata
  • Whether or not to include customary monikers/nicknames
  • How to handle "multiple D." sonatas (" — " as separator meets disapproval I see above)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I the simplifying radical mode, following the Bach example, it would be just
Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata, D. 613
with a capital Sonata, following the Beethoven works, and only one number, making redirects for all, nicknames etc only as a redirect, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about the comma between the name of the work and the catalogue number. The current guideline contains (in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Articles in series) Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51. There's however no comma between title and BWV in Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. I don't see the need for a comma (which would call for exceptions depending on how the actual title ends). Further, not all publishers use the comma either, e.g. Henle Wiener Urtext, and for Wikipedia article titles all excess, above what is strictly needed for recognisability and disambiguation in article titles is discouraged.
On the other hand, for Schubert's piano sonatas the key is usually given. Which is only logical, while not all publications (both recordings and scores), as surprising as that may seem, give D. numbers, e.g. [1]. Key is about all that is left then for recognisability (... or the odd moniker).
Regarding multiple D.'s: I'd keep D.'s usually associated in a single sonata in the page name. As I argued before at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table:

Re. naming all involved D. numbers in page names, e.g. Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 - 157): it's not that we're going to have a separate Wikipedia article on D. 154 anywhere soon. D. 154 is discussed in that article, that's why I'd be clear about that in the page title.

Note that a page title should cover what is described on the page. A slash might be used as separator instead of a dash (see e.g. Henle)
I could agree with Piano Sonata in C major D. 613/612, with both D. 613 and D. 612 redirecting to that page.
(this would however need an update of the guideline)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a D number that may be covered later has to appear in an article title. (That would have given us very long article names for Bach - 3 numbers, 2 titles for example for BWV 120 and its a/b - until each cantata got a separate article.) - Do you think the readers unfamiliar with D numbers would be fluent in keys? I confess that I find the navbox, sorted by key, rather confusing, and prefer the {{Beethoven piano sonatas}} arrangement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Re. navbox:
This is Schubert's "solo piano sonatas" navbox: {{Schubert piano sonatas}}
This is the new one I made (including the other piano compositions): {{Schubert piano compositions}}
(sonatas ordered according to the 23 Sonatas numbering system, without however giving too much attention to these numbers; also opus numbers quoted where available for recognisability) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think these moves might have been a step to far in boldness.

  • I am very dubious about sonata as opposed to Sonata: Beethoven, Mozart and others have capital S. I am sure this change should be reverted. Cf: Violin concerto - the generic article Violin concerto has a lower case c, but individual concerti e.g. Violin Concerto (Adams) use capital C.
  • " — " as separator is horrible - what's wrong with a simple '/' - thus 'D. 571/604/570' ?
  • I am entirely against Gerda's proposal of dropping 'Schubert' in favour of Deutsch number - the vast majority of WP readers will not know about D. numbers. As far as I see, BWV numbers (without Bach's name) are used for cantata titles etc. but this is not, and should not, be the case for Sonatas, concertos, etc. where the use of a catalogue number only would lead to great confusion.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize very much with Gerda's proposal, but I recognize the truth of Smerus words: that people don't go around citing Deutsch numbers (they way they do with Köchel numbers--although I'd argue that if we did it on WP, everyone else would eventually follow). As far as titles, I think "sonata" and "concerto" are all genre designations and less titles and should be lower case (though to me this is a very minor point). -- kosboot (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Before going for the slash '/', please note the discussion at #Haydn keyboard sonatas numbering above. Otherwise, I agree with Smerus. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My two cents worth:

  • Referring to a point I have tried to make earlier, three major editions of Schubert's piano works: the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions all list Deutsch numbers without a dot following the "D" I would also point out the reference made by Michael Bednarek in regards to the fact that this issue has been previously discussed and the consensus was to list Deutsch numbers without the dot. Also, any letter following a number (Ex. D 769A, should be capitalized- this is the way it appears in the Deutsch catalogue)
  • Both the G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions include all of the independent movements. Henle Verlag lists (for example) D 571 as D 571/604/570 while the Wiener Urtext just lists it as D 571. I personally would support a listing that encourages the inclusion of the independent movements as forming part of the sonatas, but I think it is important to remember that this not official (Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, a.k.a. authorities in Tübingen do not recognize the independent movements as part of incomplete or unfinished sonatas). So including them in the title might make it look more official... just something to think about... in any case, the G. Henle verlag edition could be cited as a reference if the decision is made to implement a slash (not a dash, please!) in the title. That being said, I do think that we should be consistent. Additional Deutsch numbers in the title indicate that a Sonata is formed by two or more movements with separate Deustch numbers that are put together. This is not the case of D 154, which is not a part of the structure of D 157, it is simply an early fragmented version of the first movement. As such, it is not consistent or appropriate to include D 154 in the title of D 157.
  • I really do not understand why the guidelines state that the word "sonata" should not be capitalized in this case. I know we should follow the guidelines, but what is the reasoning for this? Is it possible that the guidelines are wrong? I feel like most people posting here are on board with this idea. I would support all titles reading as "Piano Sonata in x major/minor, D XXX (Schubert)" with the possibility of added Deutsch numbers in between a slash if consensus is reached in that regard. Solti79 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And my two cents: I'm really fine with any of the various choices mentioned above; however, I do think that any title format should include Schubert's name. It just seems reader-unfriendly to do otherwise. Opus33 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the guidelines need to be changed to recommend uppercase usage for "... Sonata ..." etc. For works which are distinguished by a specific catalogue number other than opus, the composer's name is not necessary in article titles. In the case of Schubert works consisting of several catalogue numbers, only the primary number should be used; others are to be explained in the article and should be mentioned in lists. Whether there's a full stop after "D" seems to be unsettled and I don't think matters. Omitting "major" seems unhelpful and inconsistent. The comma separating the work and its catlogue number seems widely used and should be here, too. Thus: Piano Sonata in E major, D. 154. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I support Michael Bednarek (talk) except that my preferred format would be. e.g. Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613/612 (Schubert) - so should this nowall be raised at WP:NCM?--Smerus (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I also like Michael's version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think any of these will do. WP:NCM#Disambiguation already points out that catalogue numbers are "unfamiliar to most people". We can include them, but it's a bad idea to have them as the sole disambiguator. The problem of undesired side-effects of slashes because the wiki thinks they mean subpages (see the Haydn discussion above) appears to have been overlooked. --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Can I therefore suggest as a compromise the format Piano Sonata in B major, D. 575 (Schubert) or Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 and 612 (Schubert), or Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571, 604 and 570 (Schubert), to go for discussion and hopefully approval to WP:NCM#Disambiguation?--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether "and" or a slash, I would find multiple catalogue numbers in the article name confusing: it looks as if the one sonata had more than one number (which is true for some catalogues, to make confusion worse). We could have Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571, with D. 604 and the other one redirecting, or - probably better - we could have stubs for the missing ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's best. A stub for the secondary numbers would be an opportunity to include a short description the relationship to the primary one. Redirecting also fine. --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I am happy with this. Does it now need to go to discussion or can we be bold?--Smerus (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Just checking: we are going to keep the (Schubert) disambiguator, aren't we? If so, happy to be bold. If not, I think the problems with omitting it haven't been adequately addressed. --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the formatting of Deutsch numbers does matter in terms of achieving uniformity within different articles in the site. Independently of our personal opinion, if the authorities in Tübingen have determined there is no dot after the "D", why should this be controversial or unsettled? Is there a more authoritative view or source from which to guide ourselves in this regard?
  • IMHO, the word "and" after a number in the title looks just as weird as the dash, plus I wouldn't think there is a credited source that lists the sonatas in that fashion... and based on the problems mentioned above, it seems the best solution would be to not include additional Deutsch numbers in the title. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, this would be the more "official" stand anyways. Yes, let's be bold! Solti79 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be about the title of an article about a single piece that has two opus numbers. Isn't that a really, really, really, rare thing? I can' think of a single instance, aside from the Schubert 612/13 sonata.

In the case where a single article covers several works with different opus numbers, the practice has been to give the article a descriptive name, without opus numbers, as Schubert's last sonatas or Late string quartets (Beethoven). --Ravpapa (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...a really, really, really, rare thing...":
  1. Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)
  2. Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346) (treated in the same article: D. 277A, D. 309A)
  3. Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) (a.k.a. Fünf Klavierstucke, currently D. 459 + 459A)
  4. ...
  5. ...
  6. ...
  7. Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506)
  8. Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568): two sonatas on one page: the former was previously D. 567, now both are 568
  9. ...
  10. Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)
  11. ...
  12. Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612)
  13. Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505)
  14. ...
  15. ...
  16. ...
  17. ...
  18. ...
  19. ...
  20. ...
  21. ...
  22. ...
  23. ...
(See also above) — So about one in three of Schubert's sonatas has some sort of "multiple D." issue, for various reasons. For No. 3 an (often used and correct) descriptive title would be Fünf Klavierstucke. For the others above I see no descriptive title with a basic recognisability.
I could recommend to read the wikipedia article Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346), after reading that article suggest a title that actually covers the content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that shows you how much I know! Does this problem exist with works other than Schubert sonatas? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
It's rather specific for Schubert sonatas, while the numbering systems (there are at least three, the second with two variations, see this "legend to the table") are diverse and not universally used, so D would be the most obious next step, as HWV for Handel's sonata's (see links to guideline and examples above). But no, Handel doesn't have a similar "multiple HWV" issue, however there are descriptive titles like XV Handel solo sonatas (Chrysander), Handel solo sonatas (Walsh) and Fitzwilliam Sonatas. For J. S. Bach, there is the somewhat comparable descriptive title Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach), grouping six BWV numbers (which would be comparable in nature to Schubert's last sonatas).
The eight groupings of Schubert sonata D. numbers listed above are, by comparison, of (a) completely different nature(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Francis: We don't need "a title that actually covers the content". From the article you mention (my italics): "D. 346, an unfinished Allegretto in C major, has been suggested as its final movement" is just the sort of speculation we definitely shouldn't reflect in the title. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Having just paraded my ignorance before the whole project, I hesitate to chime in once again. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Stfg. I the article devoted a substantial portion to discussion of the possibly suggested movement, I would say there was some justification for including it in the title. But when it is just mentioned, it seems hardly appropriate. A redirect would be sufficient. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

New section for convenience

I think Francis is definitely wrong here. I have read the article Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346). It is clear to me that the article should be titled Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, (Schubert). The suggestion exists that D. 346 belogns to the other three movements, but this is no more than a suggestion, and WP has no justification in giving it an imprimatur. The article mentions D. 346 as a possible component, and there is no reason why D. 346 cannot be stubbed as Allegretto for piano D. 346, (Schubert) and be given a redirect to the sonata. D. 309A and D. 277A can be treated similarly, if anyone really wants to do so. I gently suggest that while Francis clearly has great knowledge of Schubert sonatas and their byways, this speical knowledge is in fact at odds with what WP is supposed to achieve. The general principle at WP:MOS is that "A title should be recognizable (as a name for or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another". I submit that Francis's desire to be utterly specific is not consistent with this guideline, and moreover, as in the case I mention in the first sentences here) could be actually misleading. In the areas where I think I have particular knowledge - e.g. Wagner - I am often also tempted to go over the top in WP, but I recall the Epigraph to Verdi's String quartet - 'Deny thyself, thou must deny thyself'. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, (Schubert) and Allegretto for piano D. 346, (Schubert) now done as examples.--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus's main point. If (as the article indicates) the possibility that D. 346 was intended as the finale is only a conjecture, that should not be the basis for picking a title.
To add a quibble: odd to have a comma after "D. 279" when there are already parentheses around "Schubert". Opus33 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Me culpa, per e.g. Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven). I will correct. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And have now done the same for D. 154 / D. 157, where D. 154 is an early version of the first movement of D. 157 , not a part of the finished whole.--Smerus (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And D. 506/ D. 566.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And have corrected titles to D. 571 and D. 613. In all these, and the above, the association of 'loose' D. numbers with the sonata is conjectural, according to the texts of the articles.--Smerus (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OK I have now dealt with all the sonatas (I think) for consistency, except for one or two where there are issues to consider. This includes creating redirects for each of the last three sonatas, which for some reason are presnetly grouped in a single article Schubert's last sonatas. They surely deserve an article each, but that will have to wait for another time.--Smerus (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Smerus. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Good job! What about the navboxes now? Should solo piano perhaps not contain the sonatas which have an extra one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: - I will leave the navboxes to you as you are so keen :-} --Smerus (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I am only the working person, not the one to make the decision ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Overview of current state of the matter:

  1. Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157) → moved to Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
    1. split off: Allegro for piano D. 154 (Schubert)
  2. Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346) → moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
    1. split off: Allegretto for piano D. 346 (Schubert)
  3. Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) → moved to Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)
  4. → moved to Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)
  5. → moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)
  6. → moved to Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506) → moved to Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)
    1. split off: Rondo for piano D. 506 (Schubert)
  8. (see #9.1)
  9. Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568) → moved to Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)
    1. redirect: Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert)
    2. created other redirect: Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) (actual D. number since 1978)
  10. Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570) → moved to Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)
  11. → moved to Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612) → moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505) → moved to Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)
    1. split off: Adagio for piano D. 505 (Schubert)
  14. → moved to Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)
  15. → moved to Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)
  16. → moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)
  17. → moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)
  18. → moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)
  19. → moved to Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)
  20. → moved to Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)
  21. ...
  22. ...
  23. ...

For obvious reasons (stubs that connot reasonably develop into a full article) I made 1.1, 2.1, 7.1 and 13.1 redirect to 1, 2, 7 and 13 respectively.

Furthermore, I would urge to keep *strictly* to this scheme I proposed above:

  1. Have the discussion here what we'd really like to do with the article titles of Schubert's piano sonatas. If someone could find a link to the last discussion on the topic that would be great.
  2. Whatever the outcome of that discussion, it would need to be conforming to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), which means that an update of that guideline would be needed when the outcome of the discussion leads to something different than what is covered by the guideline currently.
  3. Move the pages of the individual sonatas (when different from current naming).

There's no consensus yet w.r.t. the first of these proposed steps; then someone jumped to the third step, without bothering about current guidance, and moved 19 pages away from a version that conforms to the guidelines, to a version that does not conform to the guidelines, which is a bit of a disruption, and contrary to a consensus-seeking process.

The minimum step (if too impatient to find consensus here, or wait for an appropriate update of the guideline) would have been going to WP:RM The person to perform these 19 page moves was well aware such move would be contentious, so just moving with one or two persons approving is really not how things are done here, and is without doubt some sort of disruptive editing.

So I propose to make a choice: either discuss here till consensus can be found, and if necessary the relevant guideline is updated, or take it to WP:RM. Could the others who are interested in these page names inform their fellow-editors what seems best route at this point?

That being said, of course I have ideas, remarks, things I would think a good idea, and other things I wouldn't think a good idea in the last contributions to this discussion (and other changes made to the concerned articles, like changing the sort order in the piano sonatas category), but first I'd like to know whether to make them here or in a WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) - that there is a D-flat major version of this sonata (under its old D. number 567, or its current 568) doesn't show up in categories, with a page name that only refers to E-flat major. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

While the now adopted naming scheme for the Schubert sonatas differs a bit from what I proposed, I'm not opposed. The wording and examples at WP:NCM ought to be changed regarding the use of uppercase "Sonata". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For interest

I found this on my user page -

Warning: don't start moving pages in the midst of a discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#New section for convenience. I suppose you weren't aware of prior discussion (starting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed), which would show there was no consensus yet for the 19 page moves you performed on Schubert sonatas. As you were a party in the discussion you could have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for uninvolved closure. As the whole page move operation was kind of disruptive (not even giving others involved in that discussion time to respond, moving to article titles not conforming to current guidance (not even to WP:PRECISE)), consider this warning as kind of formal, I'd like not to see this happen again.

That being said, I hope you keep contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed, I'd like to see the thing solved, and there are some questions I left there and on which I'd like to see your input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I point out btw that the editor who left this kind message initiated the situation by moving titles himself without discussion, including creating titles which, as indicated in the discussion above, were misleading. I'd like not to see this type of message again, either on my page or anyone else's - and that wish is kind of formal. --Smerus (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • And now I have found this:

Smerus, please stop the abuse. Above, I pointed you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed specifically, where you can read "... That's (...) what I did, after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added). So, no, please remove your false accusations from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#For interest. It's the behavioural issue I take issue with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I learned that if a bold edit is contested, it should be reverted and first discussed (WP:BRD). (I should have known that when Beethoven's Sonata No. 14 was moved to Moonlight, would have saved weeks of trouble.) By this logic, the Schubert works could be moved back to before this whole discussion started. I think it makes more sense to take things from the present state which I think found a lot of support (add mine), and be open for necessary changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I point out that whilst 185 people watch this WP page, the number watching Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert is under 30. It is appropriate that far-reaching changes relating to classical music pages should be brought, or at least notfied, on this page. The consensus here was clearly not in favour of that which obtained in the lesser-read page.--Smerus (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Which I didn't know (there wasn't even a template linking to this project on that talk page), so the fact that the discussion took place on that talk page (with BTW a link from this talk page to that discussion on that talk page) doesn't make the page moves as listed above in #A conflict in guidelines "bold" page moves, all the more while they were consistent with existing specific guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw, now I have this on my user page:

Please quote correctly, above I typed

...after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added)

Which you quoted as

...after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added)

Which looks kinda silly (and other editorial changes).
Again, please remove all false accusations.
If this can't be settled via user talk pages, I propose to take to ANI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I of course apologize for not transcribing bolding appropriately.--Smerus (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • And now this:
Please remove all false accusations from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, neither do I want to see these repeated on any other talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly not aware of any 'abuse' or 'false accusations'. Is it this which Mr. Schonken objects to? - "initiated the situation by moving titles himself without discussion, including creating titles which, as indicated in the discussion above, were misleading". The 'wthout discussion' is I concede perhaps over the top - the discussion, on a topic with wide repercussions, was carried out on a page with very limited watchers (<30, as opposed to 185 on this page). See the very first comments on this thread, from User:DrHoehl, User:Kosboot, User:Stfg and User:Michael Bednarek. I am therefore happy to amend this to 'The situation was initiated by moving titles without appropriate outreach and discussion' . That a number of the titles that were consequently created were misleading I maintain. Indeed, by leaving out the name of the composer, I beleive all of them were misleading, or at least inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: this is generating much heat and no light. I agree with Gerda: keep the titles as they are now, and continue the discussion. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Smerus' amendment is largely insufficient, as I wrote on his talk page, but yes,... moving on ...

D-flat major sonata is now D. 568

See Talk:Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert). Note that both Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) and Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert) are currently included in the same categories (+ stub category for the page at the former D. number). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Overview:

  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)
  8. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert) → content should be moved to the current D. number of the D-flat major sonata, which is 568 (not 567) → Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) (this last one is currently redirecting to #9 but should not redirect to the E-flat major version of this sonata)
  9. Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)
  21. Schubert's last sonatas
  22. Schubert's last sonatas
  23. Schubert's last sonatas

I'll address other issues later. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The D567/568 situation seems unclear. Although the Schubert Datenbank mentions the D flat version as '1. Fassung in Des früher D 567', it still lists the D flat version as D 567.. It is therefore not at all clear to me that the D. 567 numbering for the D flat version has been in any way dropped or cancelled. Might 'früher' here mean 'earlier given the number of' (i.e. and still has it), rather than 'formerly given the number of' (and doesn't have it any more)? As the Datebank is equivocal on this, it is not for us to make any preferred conclusions. They after all two different pieces of music (although one is only an updating and transposition of the other), D. 568 revised some eight or nine years after D. 567. For this reason I am opposing the proposal to merge the articles on these two pieces which Mr. Schonken has initiated.--Smerus (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) I also gave this link [2] specifically to address this issue — as you can see the D-flat major sonata is given the 568 number *exclusively* without any mention of its former 567 number ("D 568 Sonate in Des/Es (1. Fassung in Des)" translates as "D. 568 Sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (1st version in D-flat major)")
Re. "früher": in the context it can only mean "before", as in: its earlier, currently obsolete, number. My German isn't perfect, but that much I understand.
Re. "still lists the D flat version as D 567.": the last line (commentary) reads "siehe D 568" i.e. "see D 568".
Apart from the article titling issue, of course also the content of the article on the D-flat major sonata would need to make mention of the double D. number issue for this sonata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. "D. 568 revised some eight or nine years after D. 567" — POV: both those that believe the E-flat major version was made shortly after the D-flat major version as those that believe some years lay between both versions have convincing arguments. See W. Litschauer in her introduction to NSE VII,2/1 (published 2000) - also here Wikipedia's NPOV policy obliges to give both views (and their major arguments) in the relevant article(s).
Re. "Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) should in fact be deleted as there appears to be no citable authority for such a title": there is a citable source for the D. 568 number for the D-flat major version: Walburga Litschauer (ed.) Franz Schubert: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke Series VII: Piano Music, Part 2: Works for Piano Two Hands — Volume 1: Klaviersonaten I. Kassel, Bärenreiter (2000). ISMN 9790006497119 (via the external link in that citation the table of contents of that publication can be opened, 7a is the D-flat major version given under D. 568). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, content moved as proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Article title options

(see explanation below)

  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
    1. Piano Sonata No. 1 of 23 (Schubert)
    2. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157
    3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157, and D. 154
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
    1. Piano Sonata No. 2 of 23 (Schubert)
    2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279
    3. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A, 309A and 346
    4. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A - 309A - 346
    5. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A — 309A — 346
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)
    1. Piano Sonata No. 3 of 23 (Schubert)
    2. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459
    3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459, and D. 459A
    4. (ibid.)
    5. (ibid.)
    6. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459, and Piano Pieces D. 459A
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)
    1. Piano Sonata No. 4 of 23 (Schubert)
    2. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769A
  5. etc...
  • Alternative 1: serialization on sonata sequence, "of 23" because of the other numbering systems.
  • Alternative 2: Disambiguation by D. number, without "(Schubert)" as second and redundant disambiguator, per WP:AT (e.g. WP:CONCISE), and WP:NCM (all examples in WP:NCM#Disambiguation and WP:NCM#Articles in series show that the composer's name is omitted once the disambiguation/serialization is done by catalogue number)
  • Alternative 3, 4, 5: adding other compositions discussed in the same article in a manner that avoids the suggestion that they are necessarily part of the sonata as such. Reasons:
    • For these sonatas serialization is not a straightforward story
    • WP:PRECISE (section of WP:AT policy). Exceptions to WP:PRECISE are possible, my preference is not to divert from this principle when possible.
when there are multiple added compositions, alternatives 3, 4 and 5 show alternative possibilities of how to list these
  • Alternative 6: naming the added compositions discussed in the sonata article (which I would only do for No. 3, Fünf Klavierstücke)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Imho the titles we now have are good. Alternative 1: no, because of the existence of the other numbering scemes. Alternative 2: you are using the term "redundant" in the very narrow sense of logically redundant, but the "(Schubert)" serves an important purpose in that not everyone who might be interested in Schubert's sonatas would know that they have D numbers of those that do know this, not every knows that Schubert is the only composer to have D numbers. So, while the extra "(Schubert)" might not be needed for an omniscient computer, I reckon it's definitely needed for human use, therefore not redundant. Later options: details that need to be in the article but don't need to be in the title -- same status as things like date of composition, dedicatee, ... --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. you are using the term "redundant" in the very narrow sense of logically redundant,... — in fact, no, I wasn't using the term "redundant" in that sense: I was using it in the sense of WP:PRECISE (copying from that part of the AT policy): "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." (bolding added). For the same reasons we don't add "(Schubert)" to Arpeggione Sonata or Wanderer Fantasy. For someone familiar with the subject area of Schubert compositions it is clear that they can only indicate a composition by Franz Peter Schubert, and the same can be said about Piano Sonata in E major D. 157, etc.
I acknowledge there is a recognisability deficit for readers outside the group of those familiar with the subject area, but there is no greater or smaller recognisability deficit as with Arpeggione Sonata or Wanderer Fantasy. Also, similar, that Schubert's last sonatas is about three compositions ending the series of sonatas for piano solo of that composer would be clear immediately to those familiar with the subject area, not to those outside that group. Generally speaking it is not the task op article titles to add that sort of information to article titles (if for the rest conforming to WP:AT and subsidiary guidelines).
Similar, the topic of The Kreutzer Sonata can only be surmized from the title by those familiar with a subject area way outside classical music compositions, yet we don't add the "redundant" disambiguator "(Tolstoy)", or whatever other addition clarifying the subject area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
We probably should, seeing that the disambiguation page identifies the Beethoven sonata as the primary topic. Unless we expect readers to know when we do and when we don't use the definite article in article titles and italics. I don't assume that. WP:PRECISE gives examples and reasoning for going beyond the minimal "no more precise than that". It's a matter of judgement, of course, but do we think the subject area that people should be familiar with to understand what the title refers to is Schubert's piano sonatas, Schubert's music, all piano sonatas, all Western classical music, all Western culture, all world culture, or any of those? I take the broader view, because this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. --Stfg (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. "We probably should", don't see that happening anywhere soon: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) specifically advises against any sort of addition to page titles on books (like subtitles, or parenthical qualifiers), unless strictly needed in a disambiguation logic.
The general idea you're referring to is recognisability. I'm all for maximum recognisability. The thing is that parenthical additions to the end of a page title are not very suited for that, because in Wikipedia article titling logic parenthical additions indicate disambiguation, see WP:AT#Disambiguation --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be only one editor dissatisfied with the present titles of the sonatas. This means there exists a consensus with the exception of that editor. Unless another appears, the titles should be left exactly as they are, and this discussion should be closed.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we discussed the matter so carefully but like Smerus I would also like to be done with this topic. Opus33 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out that--regardless of the topic--the vocal desire for the "thread to be done" is one of the expressions of dominance--a way to exert control over a dialogue by cutting it off. (I learned about this from one of the Wikimedia board members who is very concerned with uncivil ways in which users can treat each other.) With all the problems that Wikipedia has, I think it behooves all users to be sensitive to the way they handle dialogues with other users. -- kosboot (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This is fascinating. Does this mean no-one can ever venture on Wikipedia the opinion that enough is enough without being accused of 'dominating'? Wouldn't - to take a purely hypothetical example - an editor who bangs on about the same issues again and again, and at great length - also be considered as seeking to dominate? If - to take another hypothetical example - half a dozen editors are satisified with a state of affairs, but one editor is not, is any attempt by one of the half-dozen to suggest closure to be regarded as 'dominating'? Would not, then, a taboo of 'dominating' put at risk the whole concept of numerical consensus - on which Wikipedia to a large extent depends? I read with interest the article commended by kosboot - I suppose the intervention by Opus33 doesn't fall under 'Gender differences' or 'non-Verbal Indicators' - the varieties of 'verbal dominance' listed in the article, apart from inter-sexual examples, are given as 'Vocal control, loudness, and pitch'. But I am still not quite sure by which of these Opus33 might be considered to have transgressed. I venture to suggest therefore - without of course seeking to dominate - that rather than seeking to hand out implicit censures, we might consider being civil to Opus33, as well, of course, to all other editors. And then we could devote ourselves to considering the matter actually at hand. --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies to Kosboot and Francis Schonken. I didn't mean to be rude. Opus33 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. Closure: I think I pointed out before that listing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a more uninvolved way to get to that point. WP:AN/RFC volunteers would usually recommend to keep the discussion open for somewhat between a week (minimum for WP:RM's - what was the topic of this thread in the first place) and 30 days (for more widereaching discussions, which is the case now while the current choices seem to direct toward a guideline rewrite).
Regarding updates needed to WP:NCM (when there is a consensus on:
  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)
  8. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)
  9. Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)
  21. Schubert's last sonatas
  22. Schubert's last sonatas
  23. Schubert's last sonatas
):
  • Capitalisation of sonata/Sonata: to be decided on a case by case basis - or is there some sort of rule of thumb I don't see? Or do we want to move all Handel sonatas to pages with "Sonata" capitalised?
  • Whether a catalogue indicator suffises as disambiguator: to be decided on a case by case basis - or is there some rule of thumb like when the catalogue indicator contains less than three letters it is deemed inherently ambiguous? Note that parenthical additions to the end of an article title would be perceived as a disambiguator (see WP:AT#Disambiguation). An exception to that would best be recorded in the WP:NCM guideline.
Also per WP:AT#Disambiguation I'd try to avoid articles in the format "[someting], [something else] (something3)" while both comma and parenthical additions would be perceived as indicating a disambiguator. So I also amend my proposal above: alternative #3: Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and D. 459A; alternative #4: Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 and D. 277A - 309A - 346; alternative #5: Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 and D. 277A — 309A — 346; alternative #6: Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and Piano Pieces D. 459A.
  • Exception to WP:NCM#Articles in series: the title format for a series of compositions by the same composer can be interrupted by a differently formatted descriptive article title when such article groups more than one of the compositions in the series (in order to account for Schubert's last sonatas).
  • WP:NCM#Articles in series would need to be clearer that uniformity of the article titles in a series often supersedes common name, e.g. no mention of Moonlight in the article title of Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). However, Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, not Cantata BWV 51. (personally, I'd prefer not to move away from the common name principle too much - numbered series can be in navboxes for clarity but should not supersede the common name, nor prevent the addition of the most recognisable feature of an article topic to the name).
Other than that, I'd like to return to the editing of the content of the articles on Schubert's compositions. Last time I looked, most of the piano sonatas were still no more than stubs. When improving, sourcing and expanding the content of these articles leads to new insights for article titling we can take up the discussion of article titling issues again. E.g. changing Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 to Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and Piano Pieces D. 459A would not be possible before de-stubbing the article I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm back, having been dealing with real life for a bit. My vote is for titles of the form "Sonata in [Key], D. [number] (Schubert)," the current standard. Without wading in detail through the foregoing, I still find it counterintuitive to head articles about musical compositions with titles that don't refer to the composer. Yeah, I know, "D." is supposed to be a signal. "K." is a signal for Mozart. It's also a signal for Scarlatti. Fix that with Kk for Scarlatti? Then you run the risk of confusion with KK for Chopin--who also, by the way, also can have D. numbers (for certain works as assigned by Józef Michał Chomiński). These are just ones that crop up under the Opus number article here in Wikipedia, and who's to say that some scholar won't pop up tomorrow with a new scheme that creates ambiguity, say a comprehensive catalogue of Joseph Lanner headed BWV (for Boring Waltz Volume)? Ahem. In any event, the parenthetical ensures no confusion is possible and hence strikes me as logical, not redundant. Drhoehl (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to accomodate for eventualities in the future. If something changes, the pages can be moved in a swiff.
"D. + number" is unambiguous for the Deutsch catalogue, no confusion with Chopin. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or doesn't exit yet: neither are of any concern here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Further updates to the NC guideline

I placed my proposal for further updates to the naming conventions guideline on music at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

While we have your attention... "D" or "D."?

Above Solti79 wrote:

Referring to a point I have tried to make earlier, three major editions of Schubert's piano works: the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions all list Deutsch numbers without a dot following the "D" I would also point out the reference made by Michael Bednarek in regards to the fact that this issue has been previously discussed and the consensus was to list Deutsch numbers without the dot. Also, any letter following a number (Ex. D 769A, should be capitalized- this is the way it appears in the Deutsch catalogue)

...What are the views on this?

  • I'd stick to "D" for now. As I suggested at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Completion of the article: does anyone have access to Otto Erich Deutsch, The Schubert Thematic Catalogue. New York: Dover Publications, 1995. ISBN 0486286851 – ISBN 9780486286853 (AFAIK the last version in English of the entire catalogue)? If yes, how do they abbreviate Deutsch in that version of the catalogue? Also, does anyone have a link to a prior discussion on this (as suggested above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
As for capitalizing "A" in 769A I agree with Solti. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I prefer D, but don't get excited about D. (as I prefer an infobox, but don't get excited if an article is left without one). How about K vs. K.? No dot after BWV, HWV, SVW etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
adding: List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre has no dot but a space, also de:Fraz Schubert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Francis Schonken for bringing up this topic. I understand this seems not to interest other editors as much as the title of the Schubert Sonatas articles, but I do find it necessary to discuss for the following reasons: As it turns out, there appear to be four different ways to list Deutsch numbers that I have come across with (will use the number of the first Piano Sonata as an example): "D 157", "D157", "D. 157", and "D.157" This probably stems from the fact that the Deutsch catalogue itself (at least in the German version), does not add the prefix "D" or "D." before the numerical entries, which in a way leaves this open to interpretation. Because many different sources in both German and English are not consistent among the four different formats used above, I felt it was necessary to establish an authoritative, primary source to use as the basis for the format used here in Wikipedia. I determined that the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe edition was that source, given that the authorities in Tübingen/Vienna have been in charge for the past fifty years or so, of organizing and editing the entire Schubert output. As such, the articles I have been working on use the format as given in the NSA edition ("D 157"). While I obviously would appreciate support in this regard, I think that even more important than our personal views on the matter, is the fact that we should have all articles in Wiki that mention Deutsch numbers formatted in the same fashion, whatever that ends up being. Consistency/uniformity should be a priority in this regard. Any input that allows us to reach consensus here would be greatly appreciated. Carlos Solti79 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The form "D 157" (space, no dot) seems reasonable to me and in line with some previous thinking here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Massive page moves...

  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major D 157 (Schubert)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 279 (Schubert)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major D 459 (Schubert)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor D 769A (Schubert)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 537 (Schubert)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A-flat major D 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor D 566 (Schubert)
  8. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D-flat major D 568 (Schubert)
  9. Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E-flat major D 568 (Schubert)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D 571 (Schubert)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in B major D 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F minor D 625 (Schubert)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D 655 (Schubert)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A major D 664 (Schubert)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 784 (Schubert)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 840 (Schubert)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 845 (Schubert)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D major D 850 (Schubert)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in G major D 894 (Schubert)

Whoever thinks this is worth it, I'd suggest to take this to WP:RM, alternatively perform the page moves, if deemed uncontroversial. But maybe we'd have to look at the no-comma (piano sonatas) vs. comma (al others) issue again before moving all these pages. So I'd suggest

Either
  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major D 157 (Schubert)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 279 (Schubert)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major D 459 (Schubert)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor D 769A (Schubert)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 537 (Schubert)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A-flat major D 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor D 566 (Schubert)
  8. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D-flat major D 568 (Schubert)
  9. Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E-flat major D 568 (Schubert)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D 571 (Schubert)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in B major D 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F minor D 625 (Schubert)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D 655 (Schubert)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A major D 664 (Schubert)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 784 (Schubert)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major D 840 (Schubert)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor D 845 (Schubert)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D major D 850 (Schubert)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in G major D 894 (Schubert)
Or
  1. Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major, D 157 (Schubert)
  2. Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major, D 279 (Schubert)
  3. Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E major, D 459 (Schubert)
  4. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor, D 769A (Schubert)
  5. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor, D 537 (Schubert)
  6. Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A-flat major, D 557 (Schubert)
  7. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E minor, D 566 (Schubert)
  8. Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D-flat major, D 568 (Schubert)
  9. Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D 568 (Schubert)
  10. Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, D 571 (Schubert)
  11. Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in B major, D 575 (Schubert)
  12. Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major, D 613 (Schubert)
  13. Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in F minor, D 625 (Schubert)
  14. Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, D 655 (Schubert)
  15. Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A major, D 664 (Schubert)
  16. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor, D 784 (Schubert)
  17. Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in C major, D 840 (Schubert)
  18. Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in A minor, D 845 (Schubert)
  19. Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in D major, D 850 (Schubert)
  20. Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata in G major, D 894 (Schubert)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happens, if any page moves get done, can we please have the comma back in between the name of the piece and the letter D: e.g. Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 845 (Schubert), etc. The full stop after the D is optional, being a matter of style, and hence subject to consensus; but the comma is surely mandatory. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe best to state your preference without illusive distinctions between "optional, being a matter of style, and hence subject to consensus" vs. "surely mandatory" (which rather weakens than strenghtens an argument):
    1. If the comma is "surely mandatory", then we'd record it in a "manual of style" dependent guideline, thus definitely a style matter
    2. Regarding the comma, I found both "styles":
      • EMI:
        • (Zacharias) (back) Sonate en si bémol majeur, D.960
        • (Kovacevich) (front) Klaviersonate D.960; (back) Klaviersonate B-dur D 960; (booklet) Piano Sonata, D.960
      • Deutsche Grammophon:
        • (Kempff) (back) Piano Sonata in B flat major, D 960; (disc) Piano Sonata D 960
      • Harmonia Mundi
        • (Planès) (front) Sonate D. 960; (back) Sonate n°21 [23] op. post. D.960; (booklet) Sonata D 960
      • Brilliant Classics
        • (all on the back, different discs from the same series) SONATENZATZ, D28; QUARTETTSATZ in C minor D703
      • RCA
        • (back) Sonata in A Minor, D.821; (disc) Sonata in A Minor D. 821
... scholarly writings, score headers, etc. would probably show as much diversity... in sum... there's no "surely mandatory" for this, except for an optional and chosen directive, subject to consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who have voiced an opinion on this matter. I agree with Francis Schonken that you can probably can find numerous sources that both list the comma or not. Out of the two options listed, I prefer the second one, the one that does have the comma. I am not sure if it is necessary or not, but the title definitely looks better organized (IMHO) when it does have it. I also understand that moving all the pages listed will require some work. Since I was the one to bring up this issue, I would gladly volunteer to do this once we consider that consensus on this topic has been reached. Carlos Solti79 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait till the pages are moved, but modifying the {{D.}} template so that it displays D instead of D. will update at once all instances that use that template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't move these pages yet. I've made it an official WP:RM. See Talk:Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Given that sources differ in the outside world, I would prefer D with a period, which is consistent with usage for K. (Mozart) and K. and L. (Scarlatti), at the least, as they appear in Wikipedia, and comports with the usual expectation in English that an abbreviation is followed by a period--or, at least, what I was taught as the usual expectation; seems as if every time I turn around, another such rule has changed without notice to yours truly. If the period does go, then I am strongly in favor of the comma as requested above and would hesitantly raise the issue of whether we need to do the same regarding periods for all the other composers having like catalogue listings. If the period stays, I would prefer that our comma usage conform with what is done with other composers. Drhoehl (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"D." template updated to no-period preference

{{D.}}

Without a parameter, the template inserts a link to the Deutsch catalogue article (a.k.a. Schubert Thematic Catalogue by Otto Erich Deutsch) for compositions by Franz Schubert numbered according to that catalogue.

First parameter ("1") unnamed, omits the link whatever value is given to the parameter (only removes the period/full stop).

"number" parameter, when defined, makes the returned result of the template wikilink to the shortcut redirect to the article on the work (e.g. D. 157), while displaying the link without the period.

For the shortcuts: avoid creation of shortcuts without the period while some of the numbers in that format are ambiguous, e.g. D 506 needs to disambiguate from Rule D 506

So, this is how it works: 

 Lorem {{D.}} 506 ipsum
→ Lorem D 506 ipsum
 Lorem {{D.|u}} 506 ipsum
→ Lorem D 506 ipsum
 Lorem {{D.|number=506}} ipsum
→ Lorem D 506 ipsum
 Lorem {{D.|u|number=506}} ipsum
→ Lorem D 506 ipsum

Some clarification on the advantages of the unlinked template:

Why would one use the unlinked template, when the same effect can be achieved with a single keystroke? The advantage is that the layout of all D numbers using the template can be updated simultaneously whatever the current preference on its display → Wikipedia-wide consistency.

Another advantage is that the template inserts an non-breaking space between the D and the number value, even in the unlinked version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't understand why the link goes to Deutsch catalogue, while the article name is Schubert Thematic Catalogue. Should that be moved? We don't say Mozart Thematic Catalogue. Why capital Thematic and Catalogue anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
→ page name according to WP:NCB. No, everything is in order, nothing needs to be changed for the page name. (Köchel catalogue is different: its first edition was not in English) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, helped. I didn't realise the "book" aspect. - Now for practical changes:
  • D seemes preferable to a simple D, right?
  • How should a real redirect look like, Mass No. 6 (Schubert) for example, D 950, D. 950 or what? - With added (Schubert) in case of dab?
  • I prefer commas around the catalogue number in the lead, because brackets are often needed for a translation, and two brackets in a row look strange (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Re.

  1. yes, that's what the template proposes (no guideline however... just an aid for the D. → D conversions we're about to perform now, as a consequence of the change in preference w.r.t. the page names)
  2. See above, 4th paragraph: "For the shortcuts: avoid creation of shortcuts without the period while some of the numbers in that format are ambiguous, e.g. D 506 needs to disambiguate from Rule D 506"
  3. Not a page naming/template issue. No problem, depends on circumstances I suppose. Don't think we need a guideline about that. If so → Wikipedia:Lead section#Format of the first sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Re.
  1. Who is we? You and I and others, or a bot?
  2. I read that but it didn't tell me if we should go for D. 950 (which would be kind of strange while moving to no dot) or D 950 which is unique or D 950 (Schubert) or something else.
  3. I take that as I can use commas without breaking something, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Re.
  1. No Wikipedia:Bot requests have been filed, and I wasn't planning on one...
    • Bot people might not be intersested in such job
    • Might be very error-prone to have such task performed by a bot
    Feel free to list a bot request nonetheless. Otherwise, yes: "You and I and others"
  2. What we "should" do is open for discussion. D. 950 is the format I propose even when "strange while moving to no dot" (the visual aspect, not showing the dot, is handled when using the {{D.}} template though, another advantage of using the template), to avoid the other issues, while still relatively shure that when a D-number is used for a wikilink it is red when the article doesn't exist yet, and it is blue when it links to the article on the composition, not to some disambiguation page or other article. Example: I can type [[D. 506|the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata]] (the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata) or [[D 506|the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata]] (the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata) — now click both links and you'll see what I mean.
    (Note: for Mozart we'd have the same problem when at some point it would be decided the period after the K. should be omitted, compare K. 13 and K 13)
  3. Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I will change appearance of Schubert's church music later today, without doing redirects for D numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
TX! For creating the shortcuts I'd start from the list pages List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1–D 500) and List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 501–D 998), for example:
  • First do this (inserting the template)
  • Then, if the composition page(s) exist(s), click the redlink(s) you've created, and create the redirect
--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
As promised, section I (church music) done, also II (stage works), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Tx again. Caution for D.'s in wikilinks: in that case ONLY the unlinked template can be used ({{D.|u}}), otherwise the link where you're changing the text doesn't work any more ([4]). As said this is somewhat error-prone for automatization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_54&oldid=1074607133"