Talk:Schubert Thematic Catalogue

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music: Compositions This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles This article is supported by Compositions task force.

List of Schubert compositions by D number (Schubert compositions D number 1-504 and Schubert compositions D number 505-998) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

• Delete This is a text dump I think, apparently from an on-line version of the Deutsch catalog of Schubert's music. An important link, but which should be at the entry Franz Schubert. --Wetman 02:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and a very strong keep indeed. Compare the list of works for Beethoven at List of works by Beethoven, or the list for Mozart at List of compositions by Mozart. In the case of composers who were famous, prolific or both, consensus has been to split out the works lists into separate articles. In addition, the works list is an excellent place to put links to individual pieces--for instance if the body of the Schubert article does not mention Erlkönig, the link can be in the works list. In the case of Schubert, the Deutsch numbering is preferred to opus numbering because of completeness and chronology. Clearly the list needs further formatting and improvement to meet the standard of the Beethoven list. Antandrus 02:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Antandrus is describing Wikipedia precedent, and also the role of Deutsch numbers, quite accurately. Perhaps worth retitling to maintain parallelism with Beethoven and Mozart? Opus33 20:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in theory. It was overheavy and has now been split into 2 sections, Schubert compositions D number 1-504 and Schubert compositions D number 505-998 and the original page is empty and so needs deleting. May need re-re-titling but the material itself should stay. An encyclopedia should contain information, or it becomes useless. The D numbers have great educational value for students and musicians. While it would have been nice to have put them in Franz Schubert as Wetman suggests there is no space on the wiki to do so--Scuiqui fox 15:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Page was split in two and VfD was apparently lost. Weak keep. The lists are very long. Cool Hand Luke 00:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps useful to point out that our main commercial competition (which here is the New Grove, not the Britannica) includes lists of works that are very long indeed--for the more important composers, they try to include absolutely everything. I think we should, too; it's something readers want and need. It may take a couple decades before all the listings here link to actual articles, but we're already making a bit of progress. (I've already voted "keep" above.) Opus33 01:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. No reason not to. - Vague Rant 03:30, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Properly named as lists, and I'd far, far rather see a list of Schubert compositions in any key than a List of people who died with a tortoise on their heads or List of songs that mention their titles in the lyrics. Length is important, but being able to make exceptions in logical cases is also important. (I must be sick: I'm voting "keep" on everything tonight.) Geogre 03:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• There is no sensible reason to delete this. Keep - David Gerard 12:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Martin TB 10:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I don't know the protocol, but this discussion has been up for two weeks and there's a strong consensus. Also, the articles are getting edited. All right if I take all of this stuff down now? Opus33 16:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong yes from me. Anyone else? Thanks for helping out on the formatting, Opus. Antandrus 17:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I've done the deed. If anyone wants to reopen this discussion please repost the notices on the articles. Opus33 18:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)