Talk:Felix Mendelssohn: Difference between revisions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:


The correct form is "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", because this is the the only form he personally used throughout his life in public. So every "Felix Mendelssohn" should be replaced by "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", hust to be philologically correct.
The correct form is "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", because this is the the only form he personally used throughout his life in public. So every "Felix Mendelssohn" should be replaced by "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", hust to be philologically correct.
:Unsigned posts are useless and should be deleted. Paul Marchesano [[User:Marchesa|Marchesa]] 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


== Alphabetical order or opus number order...? ==
== Alphabetical order or opus number order...? ==

Revision as of 17:19, 19 July 2009

Should the canonical name be Felix Mendelssohn or Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy? We have both names floating around here ...

The only correct form

The correct form is "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", because this is the the only form he personally used throughout his life in public. So every "Felix Mendelssohn" should be replaced by "Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy", hust to be philologically correct.

Unsigned posts are useless and should be deleted. Paul Marchesano Marchesa 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical order or opus number order...?

I find rather confusing the actual order of this page. I see the main criterion to order is alphabetical...but when a work has a subset of pieces, they appear under the main work title breaking the alphabetical order...I think if it is by alphabet all titles, either belonging to a subset or a main title containing a subset (the later if they have an edition including the whole work), should be ordered following this criterion...To show the subset of pieces included in a bigger work already exists the page of choral works ordered by opus number...Besides, some bigger pieces are highlighted in bold italic font styles, while others, in the same conditions are shown as links making things even more confusing....Right now there is an unnecessary mess and mix of criteria...Should I (can I) correct this? Thanks Saniakob 07:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't maintain this page (who does?) but I disagree with Saniakob. The list is ordered by work title. Movements of a work are listed as a subset of the work title, in movement order, as is proper, so the list is not ordered by opus number at all. This is consistent with standard library cataloging (LOC or Dewey) practice. Mixing movements with main works alphabetically is not correct under any cataloging system. -Paul Marchesano Marchesa 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)