Talk:Felix Mendelssohn: Difference between revisions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 7: Line 7:
::I have to say I disagree, Paul. What makes an anonymous person's opinion less valid than a signed one? --[[User:Bobnotts|Bobnotts]] <small>[[User talk:Bobnotts|'''talk''']]</small> 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
::I have to say I disagree, Paul. What makes an anonymous person's opinion less valid than a signed one? --[[User:Bobnotts|Bobnotts]] <small>[[User talk:Bobnotts|'''talk''']]</small> 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Bob, I say this because unsourced research is problematic, and it is the main criticism of Wiki environment from academic research. The wiki standards seem to constantly ask for references or sources. Why would a person with a valid opinion be unwilling to sign his or her post? Besides, the spelling error and lack of signature nagged at me as combining to reduce the
:::Bob, I say this because unsourced research is problematic, and it is the main criticism of Wiki environment from academic research. The wiki standards seem to constantly ask for references or sources. Why would a person with a valid opinion be unwilling to sign his or her post? Besides, the spelling error and lack of signature nagged at me as combining to reduce the
value of the contribution. In the end, CPDL should be cataloged according to standards. The redirect and alias provide that searching for this composer gets one to his page. That is what is important here.
value of the contribution. In the end, CPDL should be cataloged according to standards. The redirect and alias provide that searching for this composer gets one to his page. That is what is important here. -Paul [[User:Marchesa|Marchesa]] 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 23:20, 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rettinghaus (talkcontribs) on 12:22, 10 November 2006.

Unsigned posts are useless and should be deleted. Paul Marchesano Marchesa 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree, Paul. What makes an anonymous person's opinion less valid than a signed one? --Bobnotts talk 20:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Bob, I say this because unsourced research is problematic, and it is the main criticism of Wiki environment from academic research. The wiki standards seem to constantly ask for references or sources. Why would a person with a valid opinion be unwilling to sign his or her post? Besides, the spelling error and lack of signature nagged at me as combining to reduce the

value of the contribution. In the end, CPDL should be cataloged according to standards. The redirect and alias provide that searching for this composer gets one to his page. That is what is important here. -Paul Marchesa 23:20, 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)
I agree with you here, Paul, but perhaps we should be emphasising all large works consistently as Saniakob suggests. --Bobnotts talk 20:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Bob, I agree. Perhaps there is no set standard for CPDL yet, as this does not seem to have been a major issue in the past. There is some general inconsistency across the site with regard to italics, normal and bold usage. Before diving into changes, would the admins consider a discussion of standards and post to the listing/uploading instructions? This would require some adjustment or tweaking of templates, I supposed, so you "higher privy admins" would have to handle some of it. Perhaps a new discussion page in another location should be initiated to move this discussion off of the composer page. Somethign along the lines of bold=major work, normal for individual works and/or italics for movements. There seems to be differentiation between English/non-English so the convention for italicizing non-English terms does not seem to fit here. --Paul Marchesa 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)