Talk:Three German Dances

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)

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus against this requested move. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 16:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Three German Dances → Three German Dances (Mozart) – Messed up and moved talk page only. As it's a generic title dab is needed despite what other user said ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – Ammarpad (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Parenthetical qualifiers are not appended to unique titles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Parenthetical qualifiers can be appended to unique titles and often are. Just not to unique topics. User:Melodia just created the article, they can be allowed to title it accurately - see Three German Dances (Beethoven) https://static.alfred.com/cache/a7/a9/a7a90bc4538bd6a5bd6d5ca9d38b7385.jpg In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If / when a Wikipedia entry is created for Three German Dances (Beethoven), then Three German Dances can be moved to Three German Dances (Mozart). Similarly, if / when an entry is created for 12 German Dances, D 420, there is also no need for a qualifier until another same-named article is created. If judged to be helpful or needed, a disambiguation page can be created under the header German Dances which would list all such titles. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article was created in 2009 by Egemont (talk · contribs) not Melodia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Undiscussed moves may afflict various article titles which could remain in such condition for years until someone calls attention to them {Leslie Howard was moved to Leslie Howard (actor) in 2005 and not returned to Leslie Howard until 2018, Jennifer Jones was moved to Jennifer Jones (actor) in April 2008 and not returned to Jennifer Jones until May 2009}. If the unneeded parenthetical qualifier "(Mozart)" had been noticed earlier, it might have been submitted for renaming at that time. Nonetheless, since Mozart's name is, of course, a key factor of identification, I would support any proposal to include it in a non-parenthetical manner, such as Mozart's Three German Dances or Three German Dances by Mozart. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mozart's Three German Dances or Three German Dances by Mozart??? I am beyond comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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.

Thus, there is no need and no point in including the qualifier in the main header if the qualifier is intended to be hidden when the title would be mentioned within article text, while the current title Three German Dances would redundantly redirect to Three German Dances (Mozart). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Gotta love boilerplate non-answers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Then let us be specific. Neither Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 (Mozart) nor Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart) have been to WP:RM for a discussion regarding the need for parenthetical qualifiers "(Mozart)", although there is a brief exchange from ten years ago (June 2009) at Talk:Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart)#Article name, questioning the need for the qualifier.

If such discussions were to take place, it would be pointed out that Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 redirects to Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 (Mozart) and Vesperae solennes de Dominica redirects to Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart), thus demonstrating that the qualifiers are not needed.

Of course, there are disambiguation pages for every concerto number and the dab page Piano Concerto No. 1 lists, among many others, "Piano Concerto No. 1 (Mozart) (KV 37), by Wolfgang Mozart" which redirects to Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 (Mozart)#No. 1 (K. 37) in F major.

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)

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)

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.

Earlier this month, I withdrew an RM at Talk:Les pêcheurs de perles#Requested move 4 May 2019 following clarifications by longtime authorities on these matters, Voceditenore and the original poster at Talk:Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart)#Article name, Michael Bednarek. Perhaps we can also consult with them regarding this matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any passionate preference in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Les pêcheurs de perles was an entirely different issue (capitalisation of foreign-language titles). This is about disambiguation. Like Michael, I don't have any passionate preference in this case. Voceditenore (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose it may be a generic title but if there aren't an other uses on WP (including potential articles) then per WP:PRECISION this move is unnecessary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

(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)

• 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)
• 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)

Yet, Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 was moved back to Piano Concertos Nos. 1–4 (Mozart) without issue, as was Vesperae solennes de Dominica...I assume had I put it in the correct section this whole talk page mess would have been avoided. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've just opened Talk:Vesperae solennes de Dominica (Mozart)#Requested move 25 May 2019. Opera hat (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

  That's kinda like saying Fifth Symphony should have Beethoven's work as the primary topic. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  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)

---

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.