In this article we will explore the topic of Template talk:Schubert piano compositions, a concept that has intrigued humanity for centuries. From its origin to its relevance in today's society, Template talk:Schubert piano compositions has been the subject of debate and fascination in multiple areas. Throughout history, Template talk:Schubert piano compositions has played a crucial role in forming thoughts, actions and beliefs in different cultures around the world. Furthermore, its influence extends to areas as diverse as science, religion, politics, and popular culture. Through this article, we will delve into the fascinating world of Template talk:Schubert piano compositions, exploring its many facets and its impact on contemporary society.
Any reason why the E minor fragment D.769a is placed as #4, between D.459 and D.537? Surely it should be placed just before D.784, following the Deutsch numbers? The estimated composition date is 1823 according to the Henle Urtext edition. Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- 23 sonatas — numbering of the piano sonatas as encountered in Franz SCHUBERT: Catalogo delle composizioni at flaminioonline.it and Franz Schubert Catalogue: 610 - Oeuvres pour piano at musiqueorguequebec.ca.
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that can't be argued with, although it's a strange numbering. #4 it is, then. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek:: I was trying to fix the long lines which extended off the screen in my browser and made the page extra wide at that point - very startling! No word-wrap is the problem - why doesn't it? I didn't do the numbering, but they do look odd; I think it's an attempt to number Schubert's Sonatas, but the template is automatically doing it (perhaps incorrectly?) How do we fix the no-word-wrap problem? I don't know enough about how templates work. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are 2 sources above mentioned for that numbering (1–23), although I can't find that in the Italian source. That leaves one obscure website that uses that numbering. The articles here don't seem to use it, and I think they ought to be removed. Further, some excessively long descriptions cause apparently some display problems (e.g. D 459, D 566, D 571, D 613, D 625), and opus numbers are not widely used for Schubert's works, so they also could be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Are they not? It's still quite easy to find references to the "Impromptus Op. 90", "Impromptus Op. 142", or "Moments musicaux Op. 94". Of course the Deutsch numbers are usually provided as well today, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see the "Piano Sonata Op. 78" listed as such on a concert programme booklet, for instance. BTW I would still prefer the actual chronological numbering in Arrebola's study of Schubert's unfinished piano sonatas (see p. 106; it's in the references of the article on D 157), in which D 769A takes its more likely correct place between D 664 and D 784. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- A navigation box is restricted in the available space and it's not an ersatz catalogue, so the lesser known opus numbers can be omitted, as can be the numbers 1–23. Excessively long description cause display problems and should thus be be avoided. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- It may not be a catalogue, but it's intended for navigation. So the relevant question is: what is the most likely way someone would be referring to a Schubert sonata? The 1–23 numbering is not likely, I agree, as they are just too ambiguous (too many numbering systems exist). But "D 894" and "Op. 78" both seem pretty likely. I would favour omitting the 1–23 numbers and simply putting Deutsch numbers as primary in numerical order, with opus numbers added in parentheses for those works that have them; and for all those works with associated extra movements making up a sonata, I would be fine with just putting the first one (so just D 571 is needed; D 604 and D 570 can be omitted), as it is not always universally agreed which extra movements should be included and someone who remembers "D 571" probably also remembers which other movements are traditionally associated with it anyway. So something like "D 157 · D 279 · D 459 · D 537 (Op. posth. 164) · D 557 · D 566 · D 568 (Op. posth. 122) · D 571 · D 575 (Op. posth. 147) · D 613 · D 625 · D 655 · D 664 (Op. posth. 120) · D 769A · D 784 (Op. posth. 143) · D 840 · D 845 (Op. 42) · D 850 (Op. 53) · D 894 (Op. 78) · D 958 · D 959 · D 960". I wouldn't put anything else (except maybe the keys). Double sharp (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- How does that look now? Only the main D# is bold as that is what the article is named and what it's commonly referred to as; the additional movements' D#s are added after slash /, eliminating the descriptions. "posth" is removed from Op. A few shortening of some titles as redundant (already in navbox group) or collective title. Not sure if D should have a period after it, but it looks better with, IMO. Eliminated space after D. and Op. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 01:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. Though I think D should not have a period after it, as that's the style used by the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe (much as that edition has many problems, heavily expounded on at length by David Montgomery in his book Franz Schubert's Music in Performance). Double sharp (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that "D" should be without period. That seems to be the dominant usage, and I changed that in the template. Per WP:OPUS, that should also apply to "Op.", but I've left that for another day. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)