This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Undiscussed move
curprev 09:45, 20 May 2019 Pierspaterson talk contribs m 7,025 bytes 0 Pierspaterson moved page Three German Dances (Mozart) to Three German Dances: no need for dab — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
In ictu oculi (
talk •
contribs)
20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Requested move 20 May 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 discussion.
Correction, yes, and it has been sitting with (Mozart) perfectly happily until Pierspaterson decided to de-Mozart it. Roman - you're contesting a correctly reverted botched undiscussed move, not that that was clear.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
If other Wikipedians propose more intuitive techniques for including Mozart's name in this entry's main title header, so much the better. The detail obvious to everyone is that the title of these compositions is "Three German Dances", not "Three German Dances (Mozart)". When indicated within links, parenthetical qualifiers are hidden via
piping:
Three German Dances (Mozart)|Three German Dances.
What? How does that make any sense that all? People routinely pipe links to remove the qualifier part. And answer my question below -- why are were the other two articles moved backed with no problem, outside the fact they were put in the 'proper' section?
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
04:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia main title headers contain various inconsistencies which are occasionally explained as
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or, also occasionally, submitted to
WP:RM as lengthy mass renamings. A number of these are handled individually, such as here, with a single entry spotted and submitted for renaming or deletion of qualifier. Sometimes a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS develops for one entry which may be inconsistent with similarly positioned entries. Other editors may pursue the matter further or it may remain unresolved for years, depending on editorial interest. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs)14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
As for the reason "why are were the other two articles moved backed with no problem, outside the fact they were put in the 'proper' section?" — controversial moves made without consensus need to be returned to their original form pending a full RM discussion and vote. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs)15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)reply
And again, the RM only happened because I fucked up the move and then used the wrong section. At the least the later is exactly the same case as this one.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
05:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:WikiProject Opera and
WP:WikiProject Classical music have developed guidelines specific to those fields which are substantially respected by general editors. Parenthetical qualifiers, however, are in use throughout Wikipedia and various editors disagree about exceptions being made for the use of qualifiers in main headers of classical music articles.
Support. 3 German Dances is no unique title, - nothing unique about German Dance or Deutscher Tanz. Beethoven wrote some, Schubert wrote some, et al. It's a generic name in a certain number. We just had a longish discussion about
Trois chansons = 3 songs.
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
15:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Support / Restore undiscussed move (Schubert) (Beethoven) etc. in fact 12 German Dances, D. 420 comes to mind. Per standard titling for classical music articles
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Question (Oppose per below, doesn't appear to be any need for disambig yet) per the Trois Chansons move. So are there other notable pieces called "Three German Dances" that are actually worthy of a Wikipedia article (e.g. not a two sentence stub that verifies existence but little else)? In the case of Trois Chansons, there was in the Debussy piece which made the matter moot. Oppose if the answer is "no" or unclear as pre-emptive disambiguation, Support if the answer is yes, other pieces exist by this title.
SnowFire (
talk)
19:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes there are. Beethoven alone has three sets of three: Three German Dances (WoO 8/3, 8/7, 8/11) Three German Dances with Coda (WoO 8/1, 8/6, 8/9) Three German Dances (WoO 13/6, 13/9, 13/11). Although as with all these "three, four, five" groupings from the Baroque and Classical period a lot of it, sometimes all of it, is due to music publishers and editors, rather than the composers themselves, ...not that that changes anything.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
21:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Look at it a different way. If you said "I'm listening to the
Pastoral Symphony", with no qualification, one's first instinct it to think of Beethoven's work. Yet
as you can see there are a number of other works with that nickname (and a bunch more not on that page).
La Mer might be an even better example, though it has other uses (including a well known song) that prevent it from being the primary topic on WP (and no other articles about classical compositions, but Glazunov wrote one and a couple others). But "Three German Dances"? You'd likely have to be a Mozart lover to not immediately ask "By who?".
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
05:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Melodia: I agree that I had no idea that Three German Dances existed before seeing this, let alone it was by Mozart, but that seems like something for the article lede to explain, not for the article title. Even completely made-up, obtuse titles for things - songs, TV episodes, former territories, whatever - that nobody not an X lover would guess, should still be at their base title if there isn't yet a need for disambiguation. I know that at least for TV episodes, there was a long old debate on this, and the conclusion was to not include parenthetical disambiguation for every single episode, only the ones that "needed" it, even if many people wouldn't know WTF the title was at first glance (e.g. just
The Omega Glory).
SnowFire (
talk)
17:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
(re In ictu oculi)Yes, I saw your comments above, but that doesn't answer the relevant part of the question: are these notable compositions worthy of their own article that is not a stub?
SnowFire (
talk)
02:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
NOTE TO CLOSER: Make sure to read the comments. Most of them are supporting the move back even when they write Oppose as they are opposing the "Remove (Mozart)" part. Also note that Mozart himself wrote a number of other sets of German dances, though no others in a set of three (including no less than five sets of Six German Dances)
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
22:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. The editor who boldly moved this to
Three German Dances did nothing wrong and acted in accordance with
WP:PRECISE and
WP:CONCISE. Nevertheless, this could have been moved back as an undiscussed move. Unfortunately the request was placed in the wrong section of
WP:RM/TR and the editor who moved the request here apparently didn't notice. Having said that, as long as there is no other article on WP that could reasonably use the title "Three German Dances", there is no need to append the composer to the title. The composer is made clear in the lead and body of the article. Even if the article were to be moved back,
Three German Dances would still redirect here, so it makes little difference either way.
Station1 (
talk)
08:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose including (Mozart). The current title is sufficiently
WP:PRECISE: adding a disambiguator is pointless if there are no other articles to disambiguate from. And even if articles on the Beethoven or Schubert "Three German Dances" existed, a qualifier here still would not be necessary if Mozart's dances were the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Opera hat (
talk)
19:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
But are they? Even known, I mean. I didn't know, I might have known Teutsche, but confess not even that. A hint at Mozart helps me. This is not the Trout Quintet (which I know as Forellenquintett) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Not really. I count over 30 articles titled
Symphony No. 5, while there's only one titled
Three German Dances. Even so, one could make a case for Beethoven's Fifth being primary, since it gets more than triple the views of Mahler's.
[1] But many editors might object, since it doesn't have a clear majority over all 30+ articles.
Station1 (
talk)
06:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Undiscussed move
curprev 09:45, 20 May 2019 Pierspaterson talk contribs m 7,025 bytes 0 Pierspaterson moved page Three German Dances (Mozart) to Three German Dances: no need for dab — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
In ictu oculi (
talk •
contribs)
20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Requested move 20 May 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 discussion.
Correction, yes, and it has been sitting with (Mozart) perfectly happily until Pierspaterson decided to de-Mozart it. Roman - you're contesting a correctly reverted botched undiscussed move, not that that was clear.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
If other Wikipedians propose more intuitive techniques for including Mozart's name in this entry's main title header, so much the better. The detail obvious to everyone is that the title of these compositions is "Three German Dances", not "Three German Dances (Mozart)". When indicated within links, parenthetical qualifiers are hidden via
piping:
Three German Dances (Mozart)|Three German Dances.
What? How does that make any sense that all? People routinely pipe links to remove the qualifier part. And answer my question below -- why are were the other two articles moved backed with no problem, outside the fact they were put in the 'proper' section?
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
04:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia main title headers contain various inconsistencies which are occasionally explained as
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or, also occasionally, submitted to
WP:RM as lengthy mass renamings. A number of these are handled individually, such as here, with a single entry spotted and submitted for renaming or deletion of qualifier. Sometimes a
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS develops for one entry which may be inconsistent with similarly positioned entries. Other editors may pursue the matter further or it may remain unresolved for years, depending on editorial interest. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs)14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)reply
As for the reason "why are were the other two articles moved backed with no problem, outside the fact they were put in the 'proper' section?" — controversial moves made without consensus need to be returned to their original form pending a full RM discussion and vote. —
Roman Spinner(talk •
contribs)15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)reply
And again, the RM only happened because I fucked up the move and then used the wrong section. At the least the later is exactly the same case as this one.
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
05:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
WP:WikiProject Opera and
WP:WikiProject Classical music have developed guidelines specific to those fields which are substantially respected by general editors. Parenthetical qualifiers, however, are in use throughout Wikipedia and various editors disagree about exceptions being made for the use of qualifiers in main headers of classical music articles.
Support. 3 German Dances is no unique title, - nothing unique about German Dance or Deutscher Tanz. Beethoven wrote some, Schubert wrote some, et al. It's a generic name in a certain number. We just had a longish discussion about
Trois chansons = 3 songs.
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
15:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Support / Restore undiscussed move (Schubert) (Beethoven) etc. in fact 12 German Dances, D. 420 comes to mind. Per standard titling for classical music articles
In ictu oculi (
talk)
16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Question (Oppose per below, doesn't appear to be any need for disambig yet) per the Trois Chansons move. So are there other notable pieces called "Three German Dances" that are actually worthy of a Wikipedia article (e.g. not a two sentence stub that verifies existence but little else)? In the case of Trois Chansons, there was in the Debussy piece which made the matter moot. Oppose if the answer is "no" or unclear as pre-emptive disambiguation, Support if the answer is yes, other pieces exist by this title.
SnowFire (
talk)
19:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes there are. Beethoven alone has three sets of three: Three German Dances (WoO 8/3, 8/7, 8/11) Three German Dances with Coda (WoO 8/1, 8/6, 8/9) Three German Dances (WoO 13/6, 13/9, 13/11). Although as with all these "three, four, five" groupings from the Baroque and Classical period a lot of it, sometimes all of it, is due to music publishers and editors, rather than the composers themselves, ...not that that changes anything.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
21:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Look at it a different way. If you said "I'm listening to the
Pastoral Symphony", with no qualification, one's first instinct it to think of Beethoven's work. Yet
as you can see there are a number of other works with that nickname (and a bunch more not on that page).
La Mer might be an even better example, though it has other uses (including a well known song) that prevent it from being the primary topic on WP (and no other articles about classical compositions, but Glazunov wrote one and a couple others). But "Three German Dances"? You'd likely have to be a Mozart lover to not immediately ask "By who?".
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
05:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Melodia: I agree that I had no idea that Three German Dances existed before seeing this, let alone it was by Mozart, but that seems like something for the article lede to explain, not for the article title. Even completely made-up, obtuse titles for things - songs, TV episodes, former territories, whatever - that nobody not an X lover would guess, should still be at their base title if there isn't yet a need for disambiguation. I know that at least for TV episodes, there was a long old debate on this, and the conclusion was to not include parenthetical disambiguation for every single episode, only the ones that "needed" it, even if many people wouldn't know WTF the title was at first glance (e.g. just
The Omega Glory).
SnowFire (
talk)
17:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
(re In ictu oculi)Yes, I saw your comments above, but that doesn't answer the relevant part of the question: are these notable compositions worthy of their own article that is not a stub?
SnowFire (
talk)
02:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
NOTE TO CLOSER: Make sure to read the comments. Most of them are supporting the move back even when they write Oppose as they are opposing the "Remove (Mozart)" part. Also note that Mozart himself wrote a number of other sets of German dances, though no others in a set of three (including no less than five sets of Six German Dances)
♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (
talk)
22:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. The editor who boldly moved this to
Three German Dances did nothing wrong and acted in accordance with
WP:PRECISE and
WP:CONCISE. Nevertheless, this could have been moved back as an undiscussed move. Unfortunately the request was placed in the wrong section of
WP:RM/TR and the editor who moved the request here apparently didn't notice. Having said that, as long as there is no other article on WP that could reasonably use the title "Three German Dances", there is no need to append the composer to the title. The composer is made clear in the lead and body of the article. Even if the article were to be moved back,
Three German Dances would still redirect here, so it makes little difference either way.
Station1 (
talk)
08:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose including (Mozart). The current title is sufficiently
WP:PRECISE: adding a disambiguator is pointless if there are no other articles to disambiguate from. And even if articles on the Beethoven or Schubert "Three German Dances" existed, a qualifier here still would not be necessary if Mozart's dances were the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Opera hat (
talk)
19:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)reply
But are they? Even known, I mean. I didn't know, I might have known Teutsche, but confess not even that. A hint at Mozart helps me. This is not the Trout Quintet (which I know as Forellenquintett) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk)
06:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Not really. I count over 30 articles titled
Symphony No. 5, while there's only one titled
Three German Dances. Even so, one could make a case for Beethoven's Fifth being primary, since it gets more than triple the views of Mahler's.
[1] But many editors might object, since it doesn't have a clear majority over all 30+ articles.
Station1 (
talk)
06:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)reply
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.