Talk:List of compositions by Carl Nielsen

POV in intro

Serious POV in the introductory paragraphs. While my own preference wouldn't be for rating the works against each other at all, this is utopian; the site does require citing someone when you do so, however. Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The commentary is a bit strong for being uncited. In my opinion, its unnecessary on a list page. Anyhow, that section is entirely the work of a single edit of User:Dono from back in early 2007. That editor is still active on Nielsen articles. We could ask if he'd be interested in toning down the introduction.DavidRF (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking notes of this list (I think nobody will notice this list at all). I have to admit that when I wrote the introductory paragraph I wasn't aware of the tone, and during the past few years I revisited this list on several occasions and said to myself "man, I should have written it better", though I never attempted a rewrite. Finally someone sees the problem and thank you. Yes, I am happy to rewrite it but I can only do it at least few months later. For now I will remove the paragraphs to avoid the tone and citation problems. Dono (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the page view tool accessible on the history page, the list received an average of 12 views per day last month, which is not too bad for a Wikipedia page, I think (don't know for sure). Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sortable list

I will try to make a sortable list of the compositions, to replace the listings by FS and OP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Attribution

The article formats information in a sortable list which was assembled in the List of compositions by Carl Nielsen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Catalogue of Carl Nielsen Works

The Danish Royal Library has undertaken huge efforts to identify all Carl Nielsen's compositions in a comprehensive catalogue of 419 items. Most of these have been included in the current table (as of 15 June 2015). Several (mainly songs) are not yet included and there are also a number of instrumental works which might merit attention, especially in cases where the score is available, e.g CNW 413, 415. Many of the songs from CNW 377 on also seem worthwhile. Any opinions? (The entire CNW listing has now been included on the DA Wiki but as of today without links.)--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You and user:Gerda Arendt have put a great deal of effort into this list. I think it is well worth while completing the links to CNW pages. Then it should be possible to submit it as a Featured List Candidate. A few suggestions:

• For the "xxx to yyy" entries, it would be better to link to the corresponding collection pages in CNW, for example 135–141
• It would match Wikipedia's idiom for ranges to use ndash as here – the linked page also uses a dash for the range
• Rather than looking for the matching page for each entry in this table, it may now be easier to look for the missing CNW pages by number and match them to our entries, adjusting as necessary, then deal with anything which still does not match

--Mirokado (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mirokado for your suggestions. I basically agree we should try to complete the list along the lines you suggest although it will entail a considerable amount of additional work. The new listings on the Danish wiki compiled by the Royal Library should however help us along. It should not be forgotten, though, that we also have a very good List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen which may be more useful to some users than the sortable list or even the CNW listings. If we are to add all the songs individually, then we probably also need to add more specific genre information for each song (e.g. on the basis of the headings in List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen). Alternatively, we could perhaps consider a separate sortable listing for Nielsen's songs, along the lines of the current list of Carl Nielsen works. It could draw on the Vokalmusik section of the Danish list, perhaps starting at CNW 116 (i.e. including all the songs for which the first line is cited). But perhaps the best solution would be to present two separate lists in the Carl Nielsen works document, one for everything except the songs and one for the songs themselves. It has always seemed to me that the songs are indeed a special case as while they have special importance in Denmark, they are virtually unknown internationally. I would welcome other opinions on this, e.g. from Gerda, Smerus, Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld.

Finally, if no one disagrees, now that the new list contains everything in the former List of compositions by Carl Nielsen (and much more), I suggest replacing it by a redirect to the new list. I have already dropped links to the old list from the Carl Nielsen article, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As you've been kind enough to ask for my views, here they are: I'm not sure there's any one right way. When I was working on the Ravel FAC I was a bit nonplussed to find there were (and still are) two separate Wikipedia pages of lists of Ravel's works: one for the solo piano music and another for everything else. I'm more attracted by your suggestion of having one page for all Nielsen's works, but splitting it into a list of songs and a list of everything else: I don't think readers will find that a problem. On the other hand there is also something to be said for having the other works broken down into categories – concertante, orchestral, chamber etc – with separate tables for each. This has pros and cons. Pro, you can easily see at a glance the section you're looking for; con: you can’t sort to find all the works he wrote in a particular year and suchlike. I very slightly prefer a set of tables by category, but the alternative is perfectly valid, I think. – Tim riley talk 10:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you sort this by genre (or CNW) you get all of one genre together. The songs could receive a separate genre number, - so far all vocal music was together because it grew like that from the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, can we go for additions to the Carl Nielsen works to include all the songs but with more specific genre descriptions, more or less in accordance with the headings in List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen, maybe double-checked against the CNW entries? It may also be useful to work independently on improvements to "List of songs composed by Carl Nielsen" which I think is useful as a separate listing.--Ipigott (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Works" vs "compositions"

Is there a reason why this article's entitled "Carl Nielsen works", while the list article uses "compositions"? Which is preferable? Alakzi (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I came from Franz Kafka works, - both are fine with me, but I think a general name may be found more easily, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ps: it's CNW and BWV, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've included redirects from Carl Nielsen compositions and Compositions by Carl Nielsen. I think we should keep Carl Nielsen works for the main title. If we provide a redirect from List of compositions by Carl Nielsen (see above), then we will have covered all the usual combinations.--Ipigott (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no further reactions on this, I've redirected as I suggested. The only remaining question on this is whether the main title of this new list should be List of compositions by Carl Nielsen (like all the others in the Category:Lists of compositions by composer or Carl Nielsen works to begin a new trend?--Ipigott (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

For clarity: I don't think Franz Kafka works is a good basis for comparison:

1. Franz Kafka works moved to List of works by Franz Kafka, and,
2. List of works by Franz Kafka is an undesirable fork of Franz Kafka bibliography (see merge templates on top of both pages) – see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Bibliographies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Naming for article titling standards for pages on literary works by author.

One of the advantages of keeping to article titling standards within a field is that it avoids undesirable duplicates. So let's do the same within the field of compositions by composer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: both Kafka pages merged now, per uncontested merge suggestion since August 2015. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

FS and CNW

I have a slight problem with the terminology used with the FS and CNW catalogues. The text in the "History" section and especially the one above the Table of compositions may leave the impression that FS is the authoritative catalogue of Nielsen's works, while the CNW is more a collection of references to the scores. FS is no thematic catalogue of works. First of all it is a bibliography (it explicitly says so in the title: "Carl Nielsen. Kompositioner. En bibliografi ved Dan Fog i samarbejde med Torben Schousboe"). It works quite well as a catalogue of compositions with the orchestral works, stage works and most of the chamber music. Especially when it comes to the songs, however, FS is problematic: It counts publications, not works. There is no unique number identifying songs published in various collections; one song may have four FS numbers, none of which actually identifies the song. But also elsewhere FS is not sufficiently precise: for instance, there is no way of telling which compositions FS 3c ("Various movements for string quartet") refers to. The CNW is the first thematic-bibliographic catalogue of Nielsen's works, and it numbers each song (or other completed composition) individually (BTW, we have given special numbers to the song collections now as well: CNW Coll. 1, Coll. 2 etc., see CNW listing of song collections; I suggest adding these numbers to the table too).

May I suggest changing "The CNWs (Carl Nielsen Work references)" in the "History" section to "The CNW (Catalogue of Carl Nielsen's Works) numbers"? "CNW" is not countable; it's the title of the entire catalogue, not of an individual entry or a reference, so "CNWs" doesn't really make sense. Above the table, I suggest changing the first sentence to also mention the CNW numbers among the sortable information: "The table is sortable by title, FS and CNW catalogue numbers, opus, ..." or something along that lines.AxelG (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no reactions, I have edited the description of the CNW according to the above. AxelG (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Many differing opinions, clearly no agreement. No prejudice against a new RM, possibly discussing Francis's proposal. My unasked for opinion: having two articles that by their title have the same scope is causing a bit of a mess. Jenks24 (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

• Carl Nielsen works → List of works by Carl Nielsen
• Ferruccio Busoni works → List of works by Ferruccio Busoni

– Should follow consistency with List of works by Max Reger and other similar titles at Category:Lists of compositions by composer. Also, the current title is misleading and appears as if the late composer is working now. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisted with notices placed on WikiProject pages  What's in your palette? Paine  12:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree and Support: we can follow consistency here. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely support "List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni" and "List of compositions by Carl Nielsen" for consistency. I've participated in the classical music WikiProject, and I think they'd warmly support this. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I will not comment this move request, but warn - as on the similar move request for Max Reger works - that you can't move Ferruccio Busoni works to List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni because they are completely different articles, which I think should have completely different names. (I am also a member of Classical music, happen to be the one who wrote most GAs in the field, but you will not listen , I know that already ;) ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt:, thanks for the comment and context. I no longer support these two moves, because while they have a list component, they don't function as much as lists. I now think the articles should stand, because there's definitely been a precedence for the other type of naming, and it seems that the WikiProject has it under control. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh goodness. (I should learn to do more investigation before I make replies. Just checked out the RM for Max Reger works.) Very reluctant weak support for consistency, then. I'm tempted to bring Max Reger works to move review. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To editor Gerda Arendt: Just curious as to why the project sees a need for both Ferruccio Busoni works and List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni? Is it because the former mainly covers the maestro's "major" works? If so, then perhaps "major" is needed in the page title? or not – I could be wrong.  What's in your palette? Paine  12:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw that the complete list is practically not readable, besides other flaws, and discussed the concentrated version with the main author of the composer's biography. A merge request was open for weeks, but nobody followed. I wouldn't mind "major" being added to its title, but on the other hand, no completeness is promised by simply "works". Btw, Max Reger works is also not complete, all works with an opus number, yes, but there are many others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda, I came to this to consider closing this request and moving the pages. Decided to relist instead.  What's in your palette? Paine  13:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comments – without either supporting or opposing the proposed page moves, some thoughts:
  • IMHO any article title referring to "works" (non-capitalised) of a composer should include a description of works that are not compositions (otherwise "compositions" should be preferred over "works"), e.g. an article called Erik Satie works should refer to various writings (at least the most important ones printed during his lifetime), and probably some of his drawings, etc. Conversely, an article called James Ensor works should not only list paintings, but a few of his compositions too (otherwise the article name should simply be James Ensor paintings). Same goes for list of works (...compositions; ...paintings) articles. Without prejudice regarding Busoni and Nielsen while I don't know whether they had significant works that weren't compositions. Maybe they had, or there could be some reticence to list arrangements of compositions by others in a compositions list (for Busoni that may be a problem, although lists of compositions by other composers regularly include arrangements). Compare: List of Le Corbusier buildings – if the title of that article had been List of Le Corbusier works it would necessarily have included his most influential books, and probably some of his paintings too.
  • The Franz Schubert's Works article ("Works" capitalised) is about a particular edition of this composer's music. Having, next to that, a Franz Schubert works article in the sense of the Busoni/Nielsen "works" articles would in the end maybe seem a bit odd.
  • The opening sentence of the Busoni "works" article doesn't make very clear what the article is about: "Major works by Ferruccio Busoni, a composer of the late-Romantic period, appear in an overview of the very detailed complete list of his compositions." Can't get my head around "... appear in an overview of ..." Where is that "overview" published? Or is it Wikipedians making an overview of an unmanageable list? Who defines the border between a major and a minor (or at least: less major) work? etc. If the intention is a "best of" article, the sources regarding who indicates these works as Busoni's or Nielsen's best need to be made more explicit, including the criteria that were used in the reliable source(s) for that selection. Similar if you want to make this an article about these composer's "large scale" compositions: then define where the distinction with the unmentioned smaller compositions lies. Etc.
  • If the article is primarily a list WP:LISTNAME should be followed. But also here I can't get my head around it very well: is this an overview with an accessory list of selected compositions, or is this basically a list with a somewhat extended introduction?
  • Note that for some composers there are "by genre" lists of their compositions, some of which are somehow a condensed list (e.g. List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Operas "condenses" List of operas by Mozart): an advantage of this approach is that for outlets that don't render broad tables very well (mobile phones etc) or not at all (afaik Wikipedia's PDF export function still omits all tables) there is still a more accessible bullet list. I don't know whether any such more accessible lists are for instance available for Busoni's compositions?

I'm afraid these "... works" articles don't work very well, and maybe the discussion to find a suitable name for them is more like the tip of the iceberg of a collection of issues that are waiting to be addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec with Francis' variant proposal below) As far as other works are concerned, there are his two books. I have just noticed a duplicate link to this article in the works template and removed that, we can change the template if we rename this article. --Mirokado (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• For clarity: oppose original renaming proposal in favour the #Variant proposal below. IMHO the original proposal is just moving from one problematic name to the next. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Variant proposal

• Carl Nielsen works → List of compositions by Carl Nielsen (over redirect)
  • rationale: "compositions" is standard for a composer, unless other works apart from compositions are included in the list (see above); since it is a list article the article title should start with "List of...", per guidance and other comparable lists included in Category:Lists of compositions by composer
• Ferruccio Busoni works → List of compositions and adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni
  • rationale: see discussion at Talk:Ferruccio Busoni works#Busoni's piano arrangement of Bach's violin chaconne. Further the fact that there are already a List of compositions by Ferruccio Busoni and a List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni and that the apparent intention of the current Ferruccio Busoni works page is to combine both types of works in a single sortable table for which "none of his work is excluded" (but afaics still without other works such as the composer's own recordings etc, which wouldn't fit in the table very well).

Discussion (variant proposal)

• Support both variant proposals (as proposer): fits better with comparable list articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: There is a bit of Wikiproject guidance that may be helpful here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Naming. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Good guidance, but not to this topic, the works by a composer, - comparable would be the paintings by an artist, the photographs of a photographer, buildings by an architect, - not books by or about the composer / artist / photographer / architext (what I would call a bibliography), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2016 (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.

Re. "No prejudice against a new RM... "

Instead of initiating a new RM I brought the page name issue up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Relisted move request. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That discussion is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 66#Relisted move request, and the related guidance introduced at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Lists. As a consequence of that guidance this page should be moved to List of compositions by Carl Nielsen. I suppose it is OK to take this to WP:RM#Requesting technical moves without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see now that this list *was* originally developed at List of compositions by Carl Nielsen, and that it was moved here as a cut-and-paste job from that page (and then further developed here). So, I'll simply cut and paste it back, after which a history merge can be requested (if desirable – the merged history would show a WP:CONTENT FORK endeavour). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: history merge has been operated for mainspace page and talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)