Talk:Felix Mendelssohn

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

I Agree with the post by Marchesa regarding things following cataloging systems,that wolud be ok if all users understand about cataloging systems...but most of us just want to find a piece to work with our choir....and yes, there is a link to a page of works listed by opus number...Also, I am an ordinary user who does not understand much about cataloging systems...I spent a lot of time trying to find a piece in that list...I imagine that people who wants to find free choral pieces are just like me, choir conductors who want to find things as clear as possible to find as quick as possible a piece...Right now, things are politically correct by following cataloging systems (used by librarians in libraries)...but here there is no librarian to help users...we are by our selves...and things are not clear..So as ordinary user, I'd like things to work right and quick more than things to be politically correct...I believe CPDL is a site for people to find things...not an internet library...I don't want to be rude...that's my opinion. There is no reason to have something that "looks ok, like in a perfect library" but is unpractical and confusing for the users...Besides, there is overlapping information...What's the need in describing subsets of pieces if that is already done in the opus number page?... Finally, this is not consistent with the Adopt-a-composer program since there, you encourage users to keep things in order as they think best, following the criteria they think best...I am part of that program and just now I am learning that CPDL follows cataloging systems...I was in charge of a music score repository and the cataloging systems I used were those who adapted better to my users needs...I am following the same idea withing the Adopt-a-composer program...this is also related to the fact that the contributors who add a new addition to CPDL don't know cataloging systems either...so they put things where they think best....If this "wiki" and every body participates, please use criteria that every body knows... As I said, I am an ordinary user and this is my opinion as such...Thank you Saniakob 00:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

There is also (since yesterday morning) a link to the alphabetical listing by title generated automatically by Felix Mendelssohn compositions.

The boldface bluelinks for large works indicate that the large work has its own page, while the boldface black (nonlinked) titles for larger works mean that there is not (yet) a page for such large works. This has been more or less the consistent practice across ChoralWiki in the past. Feel free to create new bluelinked pages for larger works.

Te Deums

See disambiguation discussion here (moved here). Richard Mix 17:17, 19 November 2011 (CST)