Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Requested move

This discussion was previously closed by Eusebeus, who used the rationale: "page moved after the clear expression of many editors in favour of consistency across article titles. Based on the observations raised during the discussion, it seems clear that any further follow-up should be posted at WT:CM". He was quite clearly involved in the discussion, and it is not proper form to have an involved party close the discussion in a discussion that is clearly disputed. Please allow an experienced and uninvolved editor to close this. When they do, they should give a detailed summary of why WP:COMMONNAME is not strong enough to retain the title where it is, as was cited by the opposes in this discussion. NW (Talk) 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong objection to reversion by NuclearWarfare. While having an uninvolved editor to close is ideal, this is normally not possible because of the problem of finding someone willing to read and absorb such a long and complex debate. NuclearWarfare's reference to WP:COMMONNAME, without mentioning WP:MUSICSERIES and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, indicates that he hasn't studied the issues very deeply either. Did he actually read the debate? --Kleinzach 23:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually NuclearWarfare was responding to the complaint at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#RM_closed_by_involved_party which was specifically about the wrong person closing the proposal and a plea to have an admin do the closing since the discussion has been so large.. Any comments he made are an aside to that (and ironically would make him and involved party himself). A couple of uninvolved admins at ANI said they would have closed it the same way but there might be an impression that the reopen bought more time or something.DavidRF (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying that. I was unaware of the ANI when I made my objection. I would certainly have posted there rather than here if I'd known about it. --Kleinzach 08:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I admit to being confused by the different posts there to the effect of "would have closed it" this way or that way, but my impression had been that the first two admins meant they would have closed in favor of Support the move rather than Oppose the move. Perhaps I'm reading these wrong. Anyway, without having noticed that User:Mkativerata had already closed in favor of Support an hour earlier, I posted to the ANI the distinction between WP:UCN and what is clearly a nickname. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved as proposed. There is an overwhelming consensus in favour of a move. It is open to editors to set aside the ordinary outcome of WP:COMMONNAME in favour of other objectives, such as consistency between article titles. The overriding policy—WP:TITLE and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA—and the very text of WP:COMMONNAME ("Editors should also ask the questions outlined above." [which include consistency]) recognises as such. Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata → Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) – Reopening the discussion from above (#Requested move: Moonlight Sonata). My rationale is in the linked section. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I get 9,910 post-1990 English-language Google Book results for Beethoven "Moonlight Sonata", 342 for Beethoven "Piano Sonata No. 14". If you look at the latter results, very few are actually using "Piano Sonata No. 14" as a title. Instead, it is usually part of a longer title, such as "Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor ('Moonlight')".[1] No RS gives the title of this piece as, Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). "The title should refer to the work in whatever way is most common in other publications," according to WP:Naming conventions (music). The cardinal-number-with-composer-in-parenthesis format should be used only when, "this method is insufficient for describing one piece individually." The most important function of a title is to tell readers how the subject is commonly referred to in the real world. The proposed non-descriptive, made-up title only misleads. Kauffner (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment. What about the Waldstein, Appassionata, Les Adieux or Hammerklavier? These nicknames are also commonly used. Shouldn't these also be moved then? Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This was discussed and rejected, see for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Many of the comments from that discussion apply here too. How about moving the Eroica or Pastoral symphonies as well? By Kauffner's arguments, every piece of music that has a commonly-used nickname should be moved. Double sharp (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are many titles on Wikipedia that do not comply with WP:COMMONNAME or other guidelines. They may dealt with (or not) in due course. The issue need not concern us here. Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Appassionata was not moved, nor should "Eroica" be moved, I wonder how many more times we will go through this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. My rationale is also in the above discussion. A redirect of the nickname (in English) will still be there and be found and mentioned in the lead. The sonata should have a decent article name consistent with the other 31 by Beethoven, imo. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed this to Strong support below, it should not be "counted" twice. The rationale, however, should stay because several writers referred to this. Please read the below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to point out here - again - that we are not "voting". This discussion consists of WP:!VOTEs. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Move back as nom. Redirect must be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons I supported the move here above: "Moonlight Sonata" is preferred by performers, scholars, and the general public. The article will still inform readers that it was Beethoven's 14th piano sonata. @Double sharp - I would also in fact support most of those "nickname" moves for Beethoven's sonatas (you left out the "Pathetique Sonata", by the way). Perhaps that's a good next step.... Dohn joe (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I should add that proper Wiki jargon is not "nickname", but "common name". Kauffner (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For me, St Matthew Passion is a good common name for the (long and Latin) Passio Domini Nostri J.C. Secundum Evangelistam Matthaeum, and Great Mass in C minor is a good common name for the nameless Missa in c because is shows that this Mass by Mozart is different from all his others, but Moonlight Sonata is a nickname, for me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, generally per WP:COMMONNAME, specifically per Kauffner (talk · contribs). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. To me, the argument for consistency seems stronger than the common-name argument. We have established the conventional form of "<genre-type> No. <no.> (<composer>)" for such articles, and I see no strong argument to make an exception here. The redirect will deal with people searching for the nickname. --Deskford (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME is a core principle of Wikipedia and the proposed name is therefore inconsistent with our general naming practices. The system you describe is the equivalent of using Zip codes or coordinates instead of city names. The title should tell the reader what the subject is called in the real world. Kauffner (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For me, St Matthew Passion is a good common name for the (long and Latin) Passio Domini Nostri J.C. Secundum Evangelistam Matthaeum, and Great Mass in C minor is a good common name for the nameless Missa in c because is shows that this Mass by Mozart is different from all his others, but Moonlight Sonata is a nickname, for me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Even if the Moonlight sonata name may be better known, it was a name never given to this piece by the master himself but was given it later in circumstances not related to the sonata's original meaning as a sonata for mourning. A redirect would suffice. Paved with good intentions (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Gerda Arendt etc. and arguments for consistency. --Kleinzach 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as well. This should not have been moved in the first place, given the clear naming convention we have adopted. Eusebeus (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per Gerda Arendt, Double sharp's OP, Deskford, Paved with good intentions, Kleinzach, Eusebeus, et al:
    • It seems to me that WP needs to remain consistent within a class of compositions such as Beethoven's piano sonatas. To the best of my knowledge the ordinal numbering of this class is uncontroversial and uniformly accepted. In other classes, such as Beethoven's piano trios, attempts at ordinal numbering come to grief, and need to be handled in a different way. When there is not consistent ordinal numbering within a class of compositions, usually the opus or other catalog number is to be preferred. Or, as Gerda has pointed out, sometimes a name such as St Matthew Passion can work best.
    • "Moonlight" or "Mondschein" was never so named by Beethoven.
    • A number of Beethoven's other piano sonatas have nicknames, some more widely known and used than others. The whole issue of nicknames can be tricky because many pieces of music have nicknames attached that are not at all widely known or used.
    • I would argue that the large number of Google hits for "Moonlight" represents general popular recognition not of the piano sonata as a complete piano sonata, but merely of the opening phrases, or at most the first movement, as a meme in popular culture.
    • From the point of view of recorded music, a CD will frequently have MOONLIGHT emblazoned across the front, and in smaller caps, Appassionata, Pathetique, Waldstein, etc, as an acknowledgement of this meme, and on the theory that people will associate any nicknamed piece of music as being more popular and perhaps more "important". But in the actual listing it will give a proper description of the sonata number, opus number, and key, with the nickname following in quotes. Wikipedia is not selling CDs, and has no reason dumb down its article titles like Amazon does.
    • It really doesn't matter whether readers will type "moonlight" into the searchbox, since they are automatically redirected to the article they are looking for. Some readers might even learn to identify the sonata appropriately.
    • I would also point out that the decision made on the basis of our present pros and cons is theoretically supposed to be based on the strength of our arguments, or WP:!VOTEs rather than the number of commenters "voting" one way or the other. And I'm having a very hard time understanding why User:Danger cut the initial discussion off so short in September - if the number of comments was so sparse, the issue should have been advertised more widely before making a determination. (Unless Danger was relying on his or her own personal position on the issue.)
Milkunderwood (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think that Gerda has made a very important distinction, above, between a nickname and a "common name", that has gone unappreciated. This is not a question of "Wiki jargon" - "Moonlight" is unquestionably a nickname. I believe Kauffner has here relied too heavily on WP:COMMONNAME, which is less applicable in this instance, and may also be stretching Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) too far. I also understand and sympathize with Jack's consistent and principled inclination in favor of the KISS principle. Nonetheless, as long as appropriate redirects are in place, I can't help thinking that as an encyclopedia, a certain decorum and dignity, for lack of better terms, as well as a basic consistency, ought to be preserved in article titles if we are to be taken seriously. The encyclopedia has an educational function, and redirecting to a more appropriate article title helps to serve that function. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; per Gerda et al. Think of the implications, and how many "nicknamed" pieces could be moved with this precedent (starting with Waldstein, Appassionata, Hammerklavier, Tempest, ...). It would be different for a work explicitly named by the composer (e.g. the Sinfonia antartica, Vaughan-Williams' No. 7). Antandrus (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstain - I'm just watching to see how this develops before I add to my comments in the previous thread. But if consistency is our thing, then we need to revisit Minute Waltz and, I'm sure, numerous other articles. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Minute Waltz is a toughie. 1) Most of Chopin's waltzes have universally recognized opus numbers (in this case Op. 64, No. 1); but several do not. In any event they do not have ordinal numbers. 2) The name "Minute Waltz" was assigned by his publisher, not by Chopin, who in fact titled the piece himself as Valse du petit chien ("The Little Dog Waltz"). 3) The name "Minute" is in a sense mistranslated - or at least misconstrued - in English, being pronounced "minnit" instead of the intended "my-nyoot" sense of the word. 4) On the other hand, if the waltz was first published with the title "Minute" - and I have no idea whether it was or not - then that circumstance would lend a great deal of validity to its popular name. --So taking all of these factors into consideration, if it were me running this show, I would move the page to its opus number as the article title, and redirect from "Minute Waltz". Milkunderwood (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Gerda et al. Historically, we know that Beethoven didn't make this name up; as the article says it was the work of Rellstab, a Romantically-oriented critic. In a scholarly context like WP we should use a nickname as an article title only if it's very firmly ensconced as the way people refer to the piece and this is not so for Beethoven's C sharp minor piano sonata. Opus33 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • By that logic, we should rename the article "Piano Sonata in C Sharp Minor, Opus 27, No. 2", which is what Britannica calls this subject. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) (@Kauffner): No, it would be simply "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)", just as the others are done. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Names exist to allow us to distinguish among similar items. If a group of names are in fact confusingly similar, well, the name is the name. But that's not what is going on here. The proposed name has been created to fit a template that imposes an artificial similarity. Kauffner (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "artificial similarity". Please take a look at this list: Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2. What sticks out like a sore thumb? Is it not Moonlight Sonata? Is there not a coherent - not "artificial" - similarity to the format of all the other sonatas?
Now look at all of the "Oppose" discussion in the section immediately preceding it, requesting similar moves for all of the Beethoven piano sonatas. That initial move proposal went down in flames; and then your proposal for moving just Sonata No. 1 went down in flames.
In the meantime you proposed a move for Sonata No. 14, and succeeded in getting it approved with no notice or discussion brought to the attention of anyone interested in classical music - apparently Gerda Arent just happened to be watching this page, and saw what was going on, and spoke up. Then User:Danger precipitously closed the discussion before anyone else could post their opposition.
So what's going on now? Look at all the opposition you're running into here. We are just trying to put Sonata No. 14 back the way it originally was. Is this a game? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Some people agree me, others disagree, and what do I care? I can still participant in the RM. What I mean by "artifical" is that normally you take a the title of a piece from the liner notes. You don't worry about whether that's coherent, decent, consistent, or whatever. In this case, the liner notes say, 'Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor, Op. 27 No. 2 – "Moonlight"'[http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Piano-Sonatas-Ludwig-van/dp/B00000411Z/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325535689&sr=8-1][http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-The-32-Piano-Sonatas/dp/B001J1A1Z8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1325535689&sr=8-2] So the proposed form takes titles that do not naturally match and makes them match. You admit below that the title has an "educational" function. What's educational about a made-up title that only Wiki uses? Kauffner (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so you're going from CDs. As it happens, the only reason I'm here at Wikipedia at all is that I am trying to catalog a very large collection of CDs and LPs. (And I'm finding that not only are liner notes are remarkably inconsistent from one to the next, but not infrequently simply wrong in their particulars.)
No, I believe you are wrong that Wikipedia "takes the title of a piece from the liner notes." Full title descriptions with ordinal numbering, key, opus number, and nickname if any, are not Wikipedia's standard for article titles, and if you look around at any large number of articles on individual pieces of classical music I doubt if you'll find any at all following that format. (If you do find any, it would help to bring it to someone's attention so it can be corrected.) I'm not sure the recommended title format is absolutely fixed, but has been the subject of some discussion among the "WikiProject Classical music".
The standard format appears to be something like Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), with for instance a hatnote saying "Beethoven's Fifth" redirects here. The parenthetical (Beethoven) is a disambiguation to distinguish it from other composers' Symphony No. 5. "Symphony No. 5" is not a "made-up title". The full description, "The Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67" is given in the lede, not in the title. Similarly, the lede for the sonata under discussion here says "The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C♯ minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27, No. 2, by Ludwig van Beethoven, popularly known as the Moonlight Sonata (Mondscheinsonate in German)..."
All that full description is just where it belongs, in the lede, not the article title. You have proposed a move, on the basis of a title and description found on a CD, from Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) to Piano Sonata No. 1 in F Minor, Op. 2 No. 1, which proposal did come to the attention of some project members, with "The result of the move request was: Not moved Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)."
"Piano Sonata No. 14" is no more a "made-up title" than any other such. Adding "(Beethoven)" in parentheses is again simply for disambiguation.
As for Wikipedia's "educational" function, my own feeling is that a title "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)" alerts interested readers that Beethoven wrote a number of such sonatas, and may serve to encourage them to look further - possibly to expand their musical horizon. It may not, granted; but it just might. To the contrary, finding an article titled "Moonlight Sonata" may simply confirm an assumed but false uniqueness, and give the reader no incentive to look around any further. All this is just my own supposition, of course, and obviously some here dismiss the idea. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is Wikipedia's standard for article titles: "The title should refer to the work in whatever way is most common in other publications." So says WP:NCM. The format you are talking about should be used only, "If this method is insufficient for describing one piece individually." Kauffner (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to hazard a guess that "other publications" means authoritative publications, such as New Grove, and not liner notes to CDs or Amazon descriptions - or colloquial memes. But I could be wrong about that. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
New Grove calls this subject "Moonlight" Sonata (op.27 no.2) on first reference, shortened to "Moonlight" Sonata on following reference. So perhaps the addition of quotation marks may resolved this issue. Kauffner (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Note that's in the article text. They do the same thing for 'Appassionata', 'Hammerklavier', 'Tempest', and for Waldstein "so-called Waldstein". Note that in the formal works list at the end of the article, they list it as: op 27/2 | Sonata no.14, ‘quasi una fantasia’ (‘Moonlight’), c# | 1801 | etc. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Very Emphatic Don't Care: This discussion has come up numerous times - last time I took part was at Death and the Maiden Quartet. But we are all missing the essential point: this is an online dictionary. If the reader looks for "Moonlight sonata" or "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)" he gets to the same place. The only difference is the words that he will see at the top of the screen - something that most readers don't even notice. So the issue is not one of consistency but of preference. The consistent thing to do is to be sure that both names lead to the same article. Which is the redirect and which is the actual article name is a matter of preference. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
In response to "something that most readers don't even notice" I think they most likely will, and need to repeat this:
  • I can't help thinking that as an encyclopedia, a certain decorum and dignity, for lack of better terms, as well as a basic consistency, ought to be preserved in article titles if we are to be taken seriously. The encyclopedia has an educational function, and redirecting to a more appropriate article title helps to serve that function.
Milkunderwood (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I am all in favor of decorum and dignity when it serves a purpose - that is, when it serves to make the encyclopedia more understandable and usable. I find decorum for decorum's sake deplorable. As in "Dulce et decorum est pro patria more." --Ravpapa (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's just my personal opinion, which I'm pretty confident isn't widely shared. Anyway, it isn't the basis of my argument - more of an aside. Obviously, as you say, redirects are crucial to making the encyclopedia work, and the more the better. Frustrations with searchbox searches was what got me started here in the first place. And if we have any disagreement at all, I suspect it's just semantics - note my "for lack of better terms". Milkunderwood (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstain While Mondschein wasn't Beethoven's idea, it has been extraordinarily successful. I think the words "Moonlight sonata" tap the aural archives of many people who would draw a complete blank at the mention of Beethoven's "Sonata no. 14". Fortunately we have redirects... MistyMorn (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Before this past September all of the Beethoven piano sonatas were listed by their ordinal numbers as article titles. So far three attempts have recently been made to move these to different titles, two of which attracted extensive !Votes which were overwhelmingly Opposed. The proposal for moving Sonata No. 14 to "Moonlight" was the only one that succeeded, and that was only because the proposal attracted no attention from the community and was precipitously closed with only the requester and one Supporting !Vote, with only Gerda Arent, who just happened to notice the request, Opposing. This was not a legitimate "discussion", and the move is invalid.
What is happening right now is not a "Proposal to move", although that is the form being used, but rather an attempt to reopen the original proposal made in September and quickly closed in utter disregard of all Wikipedia procedures for soliciting comments from interested persons.
Yes, the name "Moonlight Sonata" is well-known; and probably many people with no interest in Beethoven or any other classical music may be familiar with its opening bars, but no more than that, just as they may be familiar with the opening bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Can this alone justify changing the article title? What about all the other nicknamed sonatas? Shall we make a hodge-podge of article titles, with no consistency from one to the next? Just asking. (I don't doubt someone is wanting to bring up "the hobgoblin of little minds", so I'll just put it here myself.) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You call it "consistency". I call it "confusingly similar". It's just like "nickname" and "common name." Kauffner (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're confused by Piano Sonata No. 1, Piano Sonata No. 2, Piano Sonata No. 3 ... Piano Sonata No. 32, perhaps you would recommend that not only Beethoven's sonatas but every other piece of classical music mentioned here at Wikipedia be assigned a nickname? Or just a full description consisting of ordinal number, key, opus number, title if any assigned by the composer, nickname if any attached by someone else later, etc, in the WP article title? I have to wonder whether anyone who finds Piano Sonata No. 14 "confusingly similar" to Piano Sonata No. [any different number] may have a basic problem with innumeracy. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
We could number all the articles from 1 to 3.8 million. Who would be confused? Kauffner (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Naturally, everybody would be confused. However, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion as the Beethoven piano sonatas have a commonly accepted system of ordinal numbering and are related to each other in a series, but Wikipedia articles do not have any commonly accepted ordinal numbering system and are not related to each other in any series. I also find it difficult to believe that "Piano Sonata No. 14" is "confusingly similar" to "Piano Sonata No. [any other number]". Double sharp (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- What's with the use of multiple fronts? Before this discussion is even resolved its been reopened on another page? See Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Beethoven)#Requested_move. Is this issue just going to be rehashed over and over until a few strong-minded editors get their way?DavidRF (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
David, I think, from the context of your remarks, that you meant to say Support rather than Oppose. This aim of this present discussion is to move the article title back to the way it was originally. There appears to be a very small group - 3 or perhaps 4 individuals - who are determined to rename all of the Beethoven piano sonatas. They've been shot down twice now, but somehow in an illegally peremptory decision made without allowing for comment, they did succeed in screwing up Piano Sonata No. 14. Links are provided above in this discussion to their failures. I had not been aware of the new ones you've just now pointed to. There's got to be a way to put a stop to this nonsense. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, yes, I was confused by all the moves and counter-moves.  :-) Can we unify these discussions please?DavidRF (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we need to move this discussion, the No. 8 discussion, and any others to Talk:Beethoven's piano sonatas, where the issue can be considered at the proper "big picture" level, rather than piecemeal. It should be either (a) OK to rename all the sonatas that have common names to their common names, or (b) not OK to rename any of them. But saying Yes to one but No to another seems very inconsistent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jack, I absolutely agree. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Since we are discussing an established convention that applies to many more articles than just the piano sonatas of one composer, I would suggest we ought to be discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). --Deskford (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The established convention allows for this title. WP:Naming conventions (music) says: "Do not include nicknames except when the work is almost exclusively known by its nickname." Isn't that the case here? Dohn joe (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No, as discussed above the sonata is normally referred to in concert programmes, CD liners, reviews and so on by some combination of the ordinal number, key and opus number, usually followed by "Moonlight Sonata" in quotes or brackets (or both). --Deskford (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose; this request flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME. This sonata is overwhelmingly known in English as the Moonlight Sonata. More than any other of Beethoven's sonatas, this one is known by its popular name. Powers T 01:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


  • In the meantime, while we're deciding where to move the discussion, is there an admin anywhere around who can close down all these individual rename requests that keep popping up whack-a-mole? This is exactly what happened here - an unfamiliar admin granted their move proposal without getting comment. It's become a game of peek-a-boo. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
DavidRF has opened a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music|Beethoven Sonatas: Wack-a-mole with page-move proposals. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, please don't discuss it there.  :-) I was just making a public call on the project page to unify the discussions. See the section above it, User:Deskford of JackOfOz may have some suggestions.DavidRF (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I typed the link wrong. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Beethoven Sonatas: Wack-a-mole with page-move proposals. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually on reflection I think we ought to continue the discussion where it started, i.e. here, linking back to here from the other places. See WP:MULTI: "Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums". --Deskford (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as per LtPowers. Is bureaucracy more important than confusing the reader? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
How can it possibly "confuse the reader" if a redirect automatically takes them to the wanted page? This is a long discussion, but it might help to read through it. No one is suggesting doing without redirects - just the contrary. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Redirects are not a replacement for properly titling an article. That's why we don't rely on redirects to get people from Barack Obama to Barack Hussein Obama II, nor to get readers from IBM to International Business Machines Corporation. Powers T 03:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Barack Obama is not a nickname, it follows our normal naming style. Moreover IBM is officially used by the company. If you look at the company website here you won't find 'International Business Machines Corporation' at all. --Kleinzach 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well if you don't like those examples, try any of the ones listed at WP:COMMONNAME. Most of all, our titles should be recognizable to readers. Only "Moonlight Sonata" satisfies that goal for this sonata. Powers T 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(The following comment is copied from below because it was obviously not taken in account here) Moonlight Sonata is a common name, agreed. But there are also Wiki-rules about being unbiased. Moonlight Sonata is a bad translation of "Mondscheinsonate", a romantic era perception of music of the Classical era. We are in the 21st century now and could start to look at the piece without that bias. The name is misleading. There is no moonlight in movement 3 nor in movement 2, for me not even in movement 1. The term is common. So was "negro". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't believe any established and recognised encyclopaedia is based on nicknames. (There are, of course, specialist dictionaries of nicknames.) In Wikipedia, JFK is a redirect to John F. Kennedy even though JFK gets considerably more more Google hits than the fuller name. Why does WP use John F. Kennedy? (1) John F. Kennedy was his correct name, (2) It follows the normal form for people's names in WP, (3) giving the surname enables us to understand relationships, (4) those reading the WP article know the correct name to use in other circumstances. Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) is essentially the same case as John F. Kennedy, except we have piano sonatas rather than people. --Kleinzach 03:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So unless we create made-up names that no one else uses, we don't cut it as a real encyclopedia? Kauffner (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "No one else uses" Firstly, in your first comment here, you stated that "very few are actually using 'Piano Sonata No. 14' as a title", which implies that there are a few who do. Secondly, these names are not made up, but simply stem from the commonly accepted numbering system for Beethoven's piano sonatas. This numbering system has been used for a long time. If you look at the second page of [2] (an edition from around 1875, edited by Hans von Bülow), you can see the same numbering system that is used today from 1-32. (He also includes 33 and 34 for two posthumous sonatinas.) Also, there are no nicknames given on that page. Neither is "Waldstein" shown on page 3 (the beginning of the sonata). Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The Breitkopf & Härtel complete edition includes Beethoven's title "Quasi una fantasia" but not the nickname "Moonlight". It includes "Sonate No. 14". Double sharp (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It would appear from this that the title is either "SONATE: (SONATA QUASI UNA FANTASIA)" or possibly "Op.27.No.2." I am not clear on how you think this helps your case. Kauffner (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
          • "Sonate No. 14" is clearly printed just before the first system. The "Sonata Quasi una fantasia" title would be confused with Sonata No. 13, which is also "Quasi una fantasia". The opus numbers are okay, but we have a commonly accepted system of numbering that is simpler and takes up less space on the title, so why change? Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Why are we looking at a 19th century catalog? Even in this catalog, the sonata number is just a gloss. The current style is to drop it. Beethoven Haus gives this subject as, "Zwei Sonaten für Klavier (Es-Dur, cis-Moll) op. 27, 1-2 (Sonata quasi una fantasia)." Appassionata is "Sonate für Klavier (f-Moll) op. 57". There are obviously some problems with those titles. But my point here is just that the sonata numbers are not part of the current official version of the name. In English, Beethoven Haus uses, "Sonata for piano (C sharp minor), op. 27 No. 2". Similar forms are given by Britannica and Schiff. (Schiff's format is the one we should be following.) Kauffner (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
              • The previous proposal to include the key and opus number instead of the ordinal number was rejected, see this link. Also, why Schiff's format specifically and not, for example, Kempff's? (You proposed Kempff's format [http://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-The-32-Piano-Sonatas/dp/B001J1A1Z8/ (here)] in your previous proposal, and linked to others.) The point is that there is no commonly accepted standard for ordering the format with the opus number and key like there is for the "Piano Sonata No. #" format. This tells me that we should best leave well enough alone, and stick to the "Piano Sonata No. #" format. The nicknames are always put in secondary importance with both the opus-number-and-key titles and the "Piano Sonata No. #" titles. Did you notice that even though the nicknames are perhaps how the works are most commonly known, they are put at the end of those titles with the opus number and key? Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
                • The Britannica naming scheme violates established Wikipedia conventions in the spelling of key names (It's not C Sharp Minor but C-sharp minor) and the use of "Opus" (Wikipedia uses "Op."); Schiff spells "opus" and is inconsistent in the spelling of key names. – It is generally unwise to look for style guidance anywhere but in style guides. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Isn't it ironic that our style guide disagrees? "The title should refer to the work in whatever way is most common in other publications." (WP:NCM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • "The current style is to drop it [the sonata number]." classicalarchives.com gives the sonata number: [3]. As I said earlier, there is no commonly accepted standard for ordering the format with the opus number and key like there is for the "Piano Sonata No. #" format. Even if they were, we have style guidelines and conventions and I agree with Michael Bednarek's point that "it is generally unwise to look for style guidance anywhere but in style guides". Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per Gerda Arendt. Not only is there an issue of consistency, but what about numerous other unoriginal nicknames, many of them ephemeral? Does anyone call Mozart's Piano Concerto K. 467 the "Elvira Madigan Concerto" anymore? Granted, the name "Moonlight" is more well-known, but if you file the article under this name, you open up a can of bad smelling worms to move ton of articles to many peculiar and ephemeral names. -- kosboot (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't care, leaning Oppose. Consistency is an admirable goal, but there are always exceptions. Whether articles on other works that have "nicknames" should be moved is a subject for, well, those other articles' discussion pages. Consistency (or nicknaming) is achieved through redirects. Magic♪piano 03:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Milkunderwood (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposed titles from the second move discussion Milkunderwood linked to above don't even tell the reader who the composer was, which is IMO the most important piece of information readers would want to know. The opus number and key are obviously secondary. Double sharp (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You are missing the main point of a title. It's supposed to tell the reader either the common or formal name of the subject, what it is called in the real world. That's not the same as a description or a headline. It should not be expected highlight particular information about the subject. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"(Beethoven)" is part of the disambiguation, in any case, because so many other composers have written piano sonatas. For your system with the opus number, there is simply no accepted format for those overly long titles (do we put the opus number first, or the key, for example?) like there is for the ordinal-numbering system ([work genre] No. [#]), with the composer name added for disambiguation in Wikipedia. Finally, in the real world, if you listen to the András Schiff's lecture on Piano Sonata No. 26 (Beethoven) (one of those with a nickname) that is linked from the article, the title is announced at the beginning (IIRC) in the format "Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. [#] in [key], Op. [#], [nickname]." I think this is how the title is announced for all the Beethoven piano sonatas in the lectures, but haven't checked. The ordinal number is the first piece of information given, with the key, opus number and nickname all serving to give additional information later to help people identify the piece. We can put the additional information in the lead and add redirects if necessary, but we don't need too much information in the title. Double sharp (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The opus numbering scheme wasn't my proposal, you know. The names I proposed were from CD liner notes, and in the same format Schiff uses. I see that as a way of dealing with the sonatas without common names, which is to say most of them. But that's whole another proposal and has nothing to do with this RM. This title has been stable for some months now and conforms to both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCM, unlike the proposed form. Kauffner (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • CD liner notes are certainly not authoritative (and frequently differ from one recording to another); they are never a legitimate basis for titling a Wikipedia article, but may be used to point out discrepancies, such as in footnotes.
  • However, your statement "This title has been stable for some months now" is disingenuous at best. The original title, Sonata No. 14, was stable for many years. "Some months" means that you finally succeeded in getting this one sonata retitled, out of several other failures for retitling, on September 15, 2011, and the first post-move objection was posted on October 4, 2011, with many further objections from classical music project members continuing still to this day. In that sense the "Moonlight Sonata" title was "stable" for about three weeks - and that was simply because no one had noticed the problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • oic. You don't like my sources, so why not a made-up name? Or did the manuscript have a "(Beethoven)" on it? Kauffner (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The composer's manuscript is here, but the first few bars seem to be missing from the scan. Regardless, "(Beethoven)" in the title serves only to disambiguate between Beethoven's fourteenth piano sonata and someone else's fourteenth piano sonata, so it is completely irrelevant. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly was there consensus to move this article to "Moonlight Sonata" back in September anyway? I'm surprised Danger (an admin) moved the article, as 2 supports, 1 oppose is no consensus. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, she waited a week, but no one ever knew about it - no notice was given. It was an illegal closure. What we're really wanting to do here is not a new move, but simply reversing the illegal one. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment Kauffner posted on Danger's talk page a link to this discussion with the section heading "Kvetching about old RM" (probably referring to the previous two comments). On Wiktionary, "kvetch" (as a verb) is defined as "To whine or complain, often needlessly". Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you permit me to explain, the "vote count" if you will, was 2-1; the proposal counts. Additionally, the arguments for moving were, as I judged, based soundly on the policy WP:COMMONNAME while the opposing argument was merely to maintain consistency across Wikipedia articles which is not policy. The move also did not contradict the naming conventions for classical music.
Additionally, requested moves are centrally listed and stay open a week. There is no requirement to inform anyone directly: that's what the talk page is for. There was nothing that I can see about this move that was "illegal". In the future, I'd appreciate you bringing concerns about my admin actions directly to me rather than discussing them elsewhere. Danger High voltage! 16:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you permit me to explain - me, the one opposition in that "consensus": English is not my (first) language, policy not what I go for, but music is. People stay away from this discussion, because they feel it's a waste of time, I still speak up in the limited way I can. As stated elsewhere here: the music says
SONATE
SONATA QUASI UNA FANTASIA
Der Gräfin Giulietta Guicciardi gewidmet
Komponiert 1801
Adagio sostenuto ... Opus 27 Nr. 2
14.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Comment moved slightly to preserve continuity of previous comment. Danger High voltage! 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts and your position, Gerda. We have a similar naming situation in an area I'm more active in, biology, with scientific names versus vernacular names. The balance between the principle of using the most common English name and the desire for rigor and consistency can be hard to achieve. Danger High voltage! 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support (strike the former if you have to.) Moonlight Sonata is a common name, agreed. But there are also Wiki-rules about being unbiased. Moonlight Sonata is a bad translation of "Mondscheinsonate", a romantic era perception of music of the Classical era. We are in the 21st century now and could start to look at the piece without that bias. The name is misleading. There is no moonlight in movement 3 nor in movement 2, for me not even in movement 1. The term is common. So was "negro". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I struck out your former vote for you, as it might be construed as voting twice. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per this research of album covers indicating what people will look for and find. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
But that's just a Google images page! Can you explain the significance? Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Finding is not a problem at all, the search function shows the redirects in the same way as the others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That isn't really true. But it wouldn't matter even if it was. The title is not primarily for the search engine. A recognizable title gives humans beings a cue that this is the right place (or the wrong place, if they are looking for something else.) Kauffner (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What is not really true? - But to your other point: the first line of the lead will - even after a move - show Moonlight Sonata in bold letters. The reader who is unable to recognize that can probably not be helped by the article. - Repeating: The term is common. So was "negro". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I typed "Piano Sonata No. 14", and there are precious few images/album that say "Piano Sonata No. 14" in big type. The majority of the covers reads "Moonlight" or "Moonlight Sonata"... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Given that we have redirects, coupled with a lede which clearly explains the origin and timing of the "Moonlight" label, I fail to get excited about the issue. Nor am I convinced by the "dangerous precedent" argument, given that the absence of unique naming procedures both across WP and within the Classical Music project. I'm more concerned that the lede appears overburdened with notes and references (incidentally, making it difficult to edit): perhaps some of the current material would be better positioned in the main article? MistyMorn (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment MistyMorn, in response to your mention of the article lede, Kauffner soon after went in and rewrote the lede to his own satisfaction, which I have now reverted - see the article History tab. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Copied from above, in response to arguments based on CD covers et al:
    • I would argue that the large number of Google hits for "Moonlight" represents general popular recognition not of the piano sonata as a complete piano sonata, but merely of the opening phrases, or at most the first movement, as a meme in popular culture.
    • From the point of view of recorded music, a CD will frequently have MOONLIGHT emblazoned across the front, and in smaller caps, Appassionata, Pathetique, Waldstein, etc, as an acknowledgement of this meme, and on the theory that people will associate any nicknamed piece of music as being more popular and perhaps more "important". But in the actual listing it will give a proper description of the sonata number, opus number, and key, with the nickname following in quotes. Wikipedia is not selling CDs, and has no reason dumb down its article titles like Amazon does.
Milkunderwood (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • IMO, the acid test is the overall quality of the article. For instance, a B-class article wouldn't be dumbing down, irrespective of specific choice of title. The reader would have the necessary information to put that famous nickname in to appropriate context. Actually, the essential information is already there in the lede/lead. More generally, I would hesitate to shun nicknames, however annoying. If they call to mind even just a few opening bars of music, that phrase may mean quite a lot to people unfamiliar with Beethoven. (A bit like a friend of mine who thought he just liked the 1812, but now wants me to pick him up a CD of Swan Lake, because it's even more exciting.) Just my 2 sharps, MistyMorn (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course the overall quality of the entire article is what counts the most. But I'm afraid I am not following your thinking on B-class, or any other such - would this imply that lower-class articles may be titled however, and then if their classification is upgraded, the title may need to be "moved"? That doesn't make sense to me. Milkunderwood (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's doubtless because I haven't got any very detailed thinking to follow here. Except perhaps WP:COMMONNAME... MistyMorn (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I closed the discussion (agnostically) on the Sonata No. 8 talk page in order to centralize discussion here, since there was duplication. Let's get consensus in one place. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification Lest it be overlooked, I'm going to repost a portion of my response to Milkunderwood and Double sharp's accusation that the previous move was closed invalidly.
If you permit me to explain, the "vote count" if you will, was 2-1; the proposal counts. Additionally, the arguments for moving were, as I judged, based soundly on the policy WP:COMMONNAME while the opposing argument was merely to maintain consistency across Wikipedia articles which is not policy. The move also did not contradict the naming conventions for classical music.
Additionally, requested moves are centrally listed and stay open a week. There is no requirement to inform anyone directly: that's what the talk page is for. There was nothing that I can see about this move that was "illegal". Danger High voltage! 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If we are reposting here, 2 supports, 1 oppose is no consensus. "There is no requirement to inform anyone directly: that's what the talk page is for." --Except that no one ever saw it. Next time you get a 2-to-1 discussion you might want to forget about the "no requirement" and try to solicit a few more comments. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Argument supported by policy counts. Administrators are not vote counting machines. When, after a full week, two editors voice strong policy based arguments without a policy based opposition, that seems like consensus to me. It's often the case that requested moves don't get much participation when the move is not particularly controversial and there was no indication to me that this was a particularly controversial move. That said, clearly local consensus is more nuanced. In retrospect, relisting and cross posting would have given a better idea of consensus, since it appears that most interested editors were not watching this page. I suggest that, given this discussion, the naming conventions on classical music be re-examined. There appears to be support for academic titles (or variations thereof) and consistency across articles over use of common English names when they exist and if that truly is the consensus, policy should be rewritten to reflect that. Danger High voltage! 20:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Danger, I think you make an important point there. One thing that seems clear as a result of this experience is that the naming convention is not very clearly expressed and doesn't accurately reflect the general view of the classical music editing community. I would agree that we should consider revising it, though perhaps not until the current discussion has concluded. --Deskford (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You would not have been aware of this problem at the time, but
With reference to the present arguments about nicknames, it's useful to point out that this is only one of the strategies being used here to create turmoil. Please look at
*Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move and then again, immediately below that one, at
*Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2.
If this isn't outright vandalism it comes awfully close.
Milkunderwood (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Was this in reply to me? I'm sorry, perhaps I need more tea, but I don't understand what you are suggesting is vandalism. Is it different requests made by different editors three months apart? I see disagreement, not disruption, and certainly not vandalism. Danger High voltage! 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw that last as being overboard, and I apologize. This is 3 or perhaps 4 individuals who keep pushing the same thing over and over again. If one tack doesn't work, they keep trying another. The issue was never posted at the classical music project talkpage for input. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, I now understand the rationale for closing the first discussion at that point, but agree that the naming conventions for classical music should probably be reconsidered after this discussion. Danger, if I have offended you with my comments, I apologize. Double sharp (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
No offense taken, but I appreciate the sentiment. Danger High voltage! 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment and request to start over. I'd ask, as some have suggested, that we close this discussion and start over. I'm sorry if I muddied things up. As I wrote on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven)#Requested move, people were using the fact that "Moonlight Sonata" was the only one of Beethoven's sonatas to be titled by its nickname on WP as a reason to change that title. One editor in particular was asking rhetorically if supporting "Moonlight" meant that people would support changing other ones. So I thought I'd find out the level of that support, apparently not in the right manner. At this point, I think a new, centralized discussion would be the best way forward. I'm also posting this on User:Antandrus's page. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
No - there was already a proposal made at Moonlight talk to move the discussion, but it was determined better to leave it where it was. The best place for the discussion to have taken place would have been at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Beethoven Sonatas: Wack-a-mole with page-move proposals, but this attempt was aborted. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support This is an excellent example of the failures of WP:COMMONNAME. No academic music encyclopedia would organize this piece under the name "Moonlight Sonata". It is the populist and kitschy, as opposed to encyclopedic and academic, title. Piano Sonata 14, Piano Sonata 14, op 27 no 2, Piano Sonata 14 (Moonlight), or any combination of these would be better titles than "Moonlight Sonata". ThemFromSpace 19:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I must say that I don't see anything particularly academic about "Piano Sonata No. 14". If you look at WP:NCM, it is clear that this title part of a one-size-fits-all naming scheme designed to put all the classical compositions under one rubric. It has nothing to do with how academics or anyone else normally refer to Beethoven sonatas. According to the guideline itself, the naming scheme is just a default, the way you do it when you can't figure out what the common name is. Kauffner (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Precisely what I was trying to say earlier, but much better and more clearly expressed here - thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Wikipedia is not written for academics nor is it an academic music encyclopedia but an encyclopedia written for the general population who would likely not have the same musical backgound as a person reading an academic music encyclopedia. So I see that as a false compareson.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
But's it's not even true. The Oxford Dictionary of Music has an entry for this work - under "Moonlight Sonata". Why? Because that's how English-speaking people know the work. This is not a dumbing-down, "populist" idea - this is how reference works refer to this work. Dohn joe (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
My music reference books all refer to it by sonata number, some with opus number following, with Moonlight in parenthesis after it. Titling this just as Moonlight Sonata with the proper academic titles as a redirect to that is just ridiculous. It does a disservice to the piece, it takes it out of its timeline within Beethoven's compositions and lists is as "yep, its the one on the compilation CD!". ThemFromSpace 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying this your music books are a superior source to The Oxford Dictionary of Music? Also can you name some of the reference books that you are using since at this point there is no way to assess the quality of the sources that you are using since no one else knows what they are?--70.24.207.225 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) Oxford Dictionary of Music: "Moonlight Sonata. Popular nickname of Beethoven's Pf. Sonata No.14 in C sharp minor, Op.27 No.2, comp. 1800-1. The nickname originated in review by poet Heinrich Rellstab (1799-1860) in which he wrote that the first movement reminded him of moonlight on Lake Lucerne--a misleading approach to a movement with almost the character of a funeral march."
  • Re "encyclopedia": No, Wikipedia is not an "academic music encyclopedia", but it does attempt to be taken seriously as a reliable source of information. Oxford has this listing because a printed dictionary does not have redirects. Wikipedia does. Type in "moonlight son" in the searchbox and a reader is immediately brought to the correct title, Sonata No. 14, with "(Beethoven)" in parentheses simply to disambiguate. Or at least it used to before the page title was improperly changed. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Milkunderwood beat me to it, but the point is that the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Music is that it's there to explain the nickname — it's not about the sonata as such. --Kleinzach 00:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

The consensus above is clearly in favour of returning this article to conform to the naming convention established for Bethoven sonatas. Could Antandrus (or somebody) with raging wikiskillz please move it and we can end this now? Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I agree, but I'm afraid that Antandrus (being much more principled than a US Supreme Court Justice whom I won't name) will feel constrained to recuse himself as arbiter.
I have made a number of different points scattered throughout this discussion, and I wonder if it would be helpful to here try to organize them to perhaps clarify my own line of thinking:
  • Searchbox search is every reader's entry into Wikipedia. We should have redirects from nearly every conceivable search term to the likeliest desired article.
  • Despite the tension between the sometimes conflicting goals of openness and authoritative factual accuracy, Wikipedia does make an effort to be, and to be seen as, a serious encyclopedia where curious readers may find information that will hopefully be reliable.
  • To this effect, and as an encyclopedia in general, our mission is to be educational, in its broadest sense.
  • An important function of this educational mission, to the extent that it may be effective, is to perhaps help casual readers broaden their horizons, and pique their curiosity into investigating further.
  • In any case we should try to avoid confirming misleading or narrow preconceptions.
  • Concerning "Moonlight Sonata" specifically, I have argued that the opening bars of the first movement, or at most the first movement alone, constitute a popular meme associated with this name, with little or no concept of the composition as a whole, or its place in a set of 32 other piano sonatas, or these sonatas in Beethoven's importance as a composer, etc. Now obviously many or most casual readers will have no interest in making any of these connections at all - but some will, and will be encouraged to investigate somewhat further.
  • It has been argued that the title of an article is per se insignificant, and never noticed - I must disagree. Certainly this will be true of many readers, but I'm convinced there is an important subset of curious readers who will notice that they have been redirected from what turns out to be a nickname - and a poorly conceived nickname at that, if a reader might get that far - to a better (and more formal) article title that, as a title, places the meme "Moonlight Sonata" into a context.
I could go on from here, but this is essentially the underlying basis of my reasoning. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Milkunderwood's comments are (very) mildly interesting, I suppose, but all the guff about a 'meme' and readers' supposed reactions and intentions are pure WP:OR, and not relevant to the issue. Redirects will deal with the matters raised. And he is just plain wrong in hijacking WP's 'educational mission' to extend to misleading the uninformed. So as you gather I support the move and Eusebeus's suggestion to now resolve this.--Smerus (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If I may, I accept that my post may well be "original research" that is irrelevant guff and wrong. I was simply trying to explain my own line of thinking. And as I clearly stated, I wholeheartedly support the move as well, if that had been misconstrued. I thought I had tried to say that if Wikipedia has an "educational mission" it is to unmislead the uninformed. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for my expostulation, due to my allegic reaction to the concept of 'meme' and consequent steam enveloping my head and acrimony pervading my consciousness, thereby preventing me from properly reading and digesting Milkunderwood's discourse. --Smerus (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to be a fly in the ointment here, but we still haven't had the centralized, broader discussion that I tried to initiate at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) about Beethoven's nicknamed sonatas as a whole. This page is still full of arguments that this article should be moved back so that it's like the others. But no one (that I can see) has addressed the issue of whether the nicknamed sonatas as a class should move to their popularly-known names. There seems to be suppport for that position in WP:Article titles in general, and in WP:Naming conventions (music) in particular. There also has been questioning about the wisdom of the conventions themselves. Given the messiness of the current situation (and I fully accept my contribution to the mess), I'd propose taking a break and revisiting the issue after a short while, so that we can start it fresh. Suggestions for the best venue to bring in the widest input are welcome, but that can be dealt with later. And if people want to start the discussion now, while they're engaged, that's ok with me, too. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I also feel it's premature to end the discussion at this point. It feels like it's been aborted, rather than come to a natural conclusion. There is no time pressure here, so let's not act as if there is. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
My point of view is present on this page several times, starting with the first move to the present situation on a 2:1 so-called consensus, summarized best I think in Facts and myths, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support closure per Eusebeus (and move back to former title). Nothing to be gained by continuing to discuss this in relation to Beethoven sonatas. Nevertheless the serious points made by Dohn joe have to be addressed. At the moment the various guidelines do not address the titling of series of articles that is such a feature of classical music. I think it should be possible to do this in a common sense, 'rule and exceptions', kind of way. I'm going to make a proposal in a day or two — I'll announce it here and on WP:CM. --Kleinzach 03:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've now made my proposal here. I would be grateful if you could all have a look at it. Thanks. --Kleinzach 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:TITLE says: "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles", so this proposal complies with a fundamental Wikipedia principle. The current name Moonlight Sonata does not. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Views for this page went from 20,000 a month before the move to "Moonlight Sonata" to 27,000 afterward. There was immediate increase in readership after the move, as you can see by comparing here and here. I hope no one wants to stiff 7,000 readers a month. Kauffner (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that change from August 2011 to November 2011 is statistically significant — the page had 30,000 views in March 2011, for example. --Deskford (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Longer term trends can be visualized with the WikiStats tool(unfortunately, it doesn't seem to offer an automated way of smoothing the curve, although it does provide the raw data). At first glance at least, there does seem to have been a big jump (more than 2-fold) at around about that time which has been sustained since, such that one would expect a statistical test for trend to be highly significant. Since the jump does not seem to be attributable to seasonal or other cyclical trends (effects), one has to ask whether something else could have prompted the sudden jump. In the absence of an alternative explanation it would be reasonable to suspect that the jump had something to do (whether directly or indirectly) with the title change. Nevertheless, I find it hard to explain... Did the title change perhaps somehow affect Google searches or search results for "moonlight sonata"? MistyMorn (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
What a cool tool, MistyMorn. I'd seen the page view statistics tool before, but never the graph version. In any event, check out this comparison, putting "Moonlight Sonata" and "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)" together. There certainly is an overall rise in traffic, but like Deskford pointed out, not that much higher than earlier in 2011. And I would assume that at least part of the rise in traffic is due to this very series of move request discussions. Not being a statistician, I don't know if there's more than can be made of this data. Neat to look at, though. Dohn joe (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yup! I guess you've found the alternative explanation and answered my query (blush - you beat me to it). To be honest, I would have been rather surprised if the title change had affected traffic. MistyMorn (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course a more recognizable title increases page views. Readers are more likely to click on a title when they can figure out what the subject is. That is to say, someone who searches for "Moonlight Sonata" on Google is more likely to pick a result with the title "Moonlight Sonata". No one is searching for "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)", as you can see here. More clicks gives the article a higher ranking on Google, which in turn leads to even more page views. An RM might lead to a burst of interest for a few days, but it wouldn't explain why page views were still higher in November. The WikiStats tool is being misused above. This graph gives you a better idea of what is going on. The increase was from about 700 page views a day to about 800 a day. Kauffner (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
But if you expand that graph in time a little, you'll see that there were comparable page views under the "Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)" title, as well. I'm on the "Moonlight Sonata" side here, and I'm not saying that the graph doesn't help - I just don't think we can make an easy pronouncement on the effect of the title change. Again, though - someone better at stats than me is welcome to help out! Dohn joe (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This Google Insights graph suggests that the overall level of interest in this subject was steady during this period. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Has no one thought that the supposed spike in views might be because of the naming controversy? (that participants want to see the article before getting involved) -- kosboot (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not a "spike", but a sustained increased of 7,000 views a month. Three editors were involved in the September RM, so I don't think that explains it. No, you're not the first person to have this idea. We discussed it just above. Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Gerda Arendt, Kleinzach for consistency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Gerda Arendt, Kleinzach for consistency. -- kosboot (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For the same reason that the Hammerklavier, the Appassionata, the Waldstein, the Tempest, etc, are all redirects to the Sonata numbers. Many of these are comparable and arguably greater works. (I am wondering whether to qualify to vote for the "Moonlight Sonata" alternative, an editor should be able to play its last movement.) Mathsci (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That you would even consider such a qualification is emblematic of what is wrong with this discussion. Powers T 21:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Several claims have been made in support of the primacy of expert opinion. But this is going it some... MistyMorn (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency - Redirects and searches will be sufficient for finding this, especially since it wasn't a title that Beethoven gave the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. A self-labelled experienced admin has cited WP:COMMONNAME as the guiding principle here, totally ignoring the basic principles for naming Wikipedia articles at Wikipedia:TITLE#Deciding_on_an_article_title. One of the fundamental principles listed there is Consistency. There can be little argument that both of the names under consideration here are commonly used names for this piece of music. I feel that this admin has now clearly disqualified him/herself from participating in this decision as he/she has disregarded a clear consensus for using consistency as one of the main criteria to be considered in selecting the name of the article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Consistency is only one of five criteria that we should be considering. Naturalness, conciseness, and recognizability are equally important, and all three are better served by the title "Moonlight Sonata". Powers T 21:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't say that COMMONAME was the guiding principle. Neither though can it be ignored. A closing statement that concludes that the page should be moved should address why it isn't a strong enough argument to override the other issues raised, as that section of policy was frequently cited by the opposers. NW (Talk) 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm shocked by NuclearWarfare's involvement in this discussion, following his reversion of the closure. I've already noted his selective references to COMMONNAME but not to the more specific WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:MUSICSERIES. --Kleinzach 00:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Just to speak up for NuclearWarfare - it appears to me that his only involvement has been to respond to comments on his reversion - both of which (the comments and the response) are allowed). Two other quick points. WP:COMMONNAME is actually more specific, as it is simply a subsection within WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Also, it's not surprising that WP:MUSICSERIES was not cited, as it didn't exist until a couple days ago, and only a dozen or so editors are likely to have heard of it at all. (Not to mention that WP:Naming conventions (music) still allows for use of common and nicknames in titles....) Dohn joe (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
          • NuclearWarfare wrote: "[…] that the page should be moved should address why it [COMMONNAME] isn't a strong enough argument to override the other issues raised," – I don't see any primary principle at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA which needs to be overridden by lesser principles. It's up to this discussion to choose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Key

Looking at the facts, I don't think the key C-sharp minor is part of the title, then why is it bold, on top of linked? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't bold anymore. Even where provided by the composer himself (and this one was, although a great many were provided by later people), an opus/catalogue number is not, imo, a part of the title of the work, and should not be bolded. We've all come to associate opus etc numbers with particular works, and even refer to them by their number alone, eg. "He played the Chopin 2nd Sonata, Gaspard de la Nuit, and the D 960". That sort of thing. But that's not the encyclopedic way. They identify a piece of music, and it's appropriate to quote the numbers when introducing works, but they're still not part of the title. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You answered "opus no", I asked "key", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
So you did. How irrelevant of me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the title page of the first edition (by Cappi) at Beethoven-Haus Bonn. Kauffner (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I see on that title "Opera 27 No 2", I don't see "C-sharp minor" or "cis-moll" or whatever it would be in Italian. I think the key should not be bold, but the opus no, as given by Beethoven himself, should be.
Now you can refer to my above comments. Just because an opus number appears on the title page, is not a reason to regard it as an implicit part of the title of the work and therefore deserving of bolding. Otherwise, we'd have a whole pile of works whose titles incorporate their opus numbers, and another whole pile that have opus numbers but whose titles exclude them because they weren't mentioned on the title page of the first publication - and that would be a crazily inconsistent thing for an encyclopedia to do. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Taken, but where is the rationale to have the key bold? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Search me. Gerda. We both agree they should not be bold. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice to find you, but now what? I un-bolded it once, and I don't like edit war, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Now nothing. We're in agreement that it should not be bolded, and it's not bolded. Unless someone objects, problem solved. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I seem to have problems with my eyes, I see the key, C-sharp minor, bold and blue, now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Gerda - your eyes are fine. It's still bolded. I don't really care whether it should be or not, but it does seem that other pieces tend to bold the key. (See Piano Concerto No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), Violin Sonata (Franck), Piano Trio No. 1 (Schubert) for three random examples.) Again, whether the standard is good or not is something we can talk about, but it is the standard.... Dohn joe (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Gerda, Dohn joe is right that most first mentions in ledes do seem to bold the key, as e.g. Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor. What's different here is not the bolding, but the link to C-sharp minor. This link seems unnecessary and probably ought to be removed. Edit: You unbolded and linked at the same time; then Dohn joe rebolded but did not unlink, so now it looks funny. Do you find a lot of examples with the key not in bold? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a BIG apology to make. I must be on drugs or something (if only it were as simple as that). When I was saying the key should not be bolded, I was thinking about the opus number. I can't even begin to imagine how I confused these things. Let me state my position as clearly as I can: The key should be bolded, but the opus number should NOT be. Thus, Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor, Op. 27, No. 2. Sorry. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Apology taken, a small one would have been more than sufficient. Back to the beginning, the key is not part of the title. I would understand it as bolding of a redirect, but not of the article name, for example: Ludwig van Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, short for Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor, Op. 27, No. 2, is a piano sonata in C-sharp minor, composed in 1801. ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you even more for supplying evidence that it should be "Sonata quasi una fantasia", not "Quasi una fantasia" (Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonate für Klavier (cis-Moll) op. 27, 2 (Sonata quasi una fantasia), Cappi, 879), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "it" refers to in that sentence (no criticism implied), but as long as we're not talking about article titles I tend to agree. At the same time, I still think there is room for a Wikipedia article on "Quasi una fantasia", dedicated to the usage of this well-known phrase. MistyMorn (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"It" should be the mentioning in the article (done), the name of a redirect or short article as mentioned above, and in general avoid the capitalisation of "quasi". The publisher capitalised Fantasia, but that is not WP style, I'm afraid. I recommend to look at that beautiful picture: you would think the piece was named Giulietta Guicciardi! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Shame the image is copyright protected. It would have made a splendid illustration. MistyMorn (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It was published in 1802. Anything published before 1923 is public domain. The image doesn't belong to Beethoven Haus, so they can't copyright it. Kauffner (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Good, thank you. I should have written "seems to be": The content of this website (images, text, audio and video files) is protected by law. The Beethoven-Haus owns the copyright and rights of use for all the texts and original graphics on this website. I know nothing about copyright issues and I've yet to upload an image on WP, but I feel it would make an attractive and informative illustration to both this page and that of the dedicatee. Even a potential 'Today's featured picture' candidate for the front page? MistyMorn (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I wasn't volunteering to upload the image myself (copyright issues confuse and scare me, and I think I'd have to be talked through the process).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._14_(Beethoven)/Archive_2&oldid=1136374114"