Talk:Centre de musique romantique française

Conflict of interest
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Name of the institution
The name of the foundation/organisation/centre is indeed Palazzetto Bru Zane - Centre de musique romantique française, even if it may seem counterintuitive. Not only their homepage and the logo confirm this, but also newspaper articles such as this one, see the first sentence: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/feb/23/mehul-uthal-cd-review-deshayes-beuron-bou Casino Zane may be the most appropriate name for the building itself, while Centre de musique romantique française rather acts as a subtitle explaining the nature of the organisation. I propose that the history of the building may be included in one separate section of the organisation's article. In my view, a separate article would need a more detailed elaboration on architectural aspects. I am also unsure whether it actually stands out against other buildings of the period (and is therefore of encyclopedical relevance). CharlesVilliers (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Against all my intentions, I have now kept the old name Centre de musique romantique française for the new version of the article. I still strongly suggest moving the page to Palazzetto Bru Zane - Centre de musique romantique française as I successfully requested this morning. Reports in the media generally make use of the name Palazzetto Bru Zane, whereas Centre de musique romantique française is the subtitle. I am not sure how to do this, but I invite comments of and, following the former's suggestion, . Do you agree with the name change and are you technically able to implement it or should I request it another time? Thank you very much. CharlesVilliers (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2017

 * 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. After two listing periods, it's clear that the proposed move doesn't have consensus. 's suggestion to split the article into separate ones about the ancient palace and the mordern music centre might be worth discussing too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Centre de musique romantique française → Palazzetto Bru Zane - Centre de musique romantique française – The name of the institution and how it is most commonly referred to in the press is Palazzetto Bru Zane, while Centre de musique romantique française explains its function and is the official subtitle (see homepage and logo). The page was already moved yesterday, but this move was reverted without giving a reason or reference. Users that disagree on this point are welcome to contribute to the talk page where I have already started a section on this topic. Thank you. CharlesVilliers (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm not sure that such an unwieldy title is helpful; redirects will allow the article to be found either way. Whatever will be decided, the dash must be an en dash: Palazzetto Bru Zane – Centre de musique romantique française. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – I don't think we need to discuss here whether the name of the institution is unwieldy or not. I do think it is a bit confusing (the name of the building as the name of the organisation), all the more I think it is important to give it correctly. If the whole title really is too long to be the name of the article, the page should be moved to Palazzetto Bru Zane. Centre de musique romantique française is (only) the subtitle. But to make it clear that the article is primarily about the organisation and only briefly recounts the history of the palazzetto/casino Zane, I nevertheless plead in favour of giving the whole title. CharlesVilliers (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about "Palazzetto Bru Zane – Centre of French Romantic Music"? It is shorter, uses an English-language descriptive title, and is what the Times of London uses. Syek88 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no question that the foundation uses the proposed, but absurdly long, title to describe its presence in Venice, which consists of two things, a small palace – the Casino Zane – and a centre for French Romantic music housed within it. The palace has over three centuries of history, the centre some seven or eight years. There's no reason for us to conflate the two distinct concepts and entities in one article, any more than we try to conflate Ca' Foscari and the university it houses into a single page. This page was, until the recent hijack, about the centre, and should remain so. Our article title policy in a nutshell: "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". The proposed title fails #2. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you gave as an example is not called University of Venice, but Ca' Foscari University of Venice. That actually supports my argument. CharlesVilliers (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and I note that the only support !vote so far is from nom. The official name is not particularly relevant, nor is it necessarily the correct name for the article. No justification has been given for the move in terms of WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am new to Wikipedia and not familiar with the mode of discussing here (I had to look up what nom means, for example). Please excuse the lack of ′codified′ arguments, ones that refer explicitly to the policy for article titles. I want to learn, though, and will try to provide them. As to why there is yet only one (my) support vote—there are also only two oppose votes—I don't know how move discussions usually work out: do other users become aware of the existence of the discussion? If yes, why do most of them decide not to take part? Is there a way to invite other users' comments? To come back to the name discussion; the name of the centre, that is, of the entity that organises concerts, among other things, is Palazzetto Bru Zane (the building with its history may be more appropriately called Casino Bru Zane). This is not only the official name, it is also the name the press refers to the centre (The Guardian, first sentence, or The Times, see above). As a consequence, I think, the name Palazzetto Bru Zane is more recognisable and more natural (″readers are likely to look or search for″) than the current. A reader of these journal articles would not search for Centre de musique romantique française in the first place. The long article name, ″Palazzetto Bru Zane - Centre de musique romantique française″ or "Palazzetto Bru Zane – Centre of French Romantic Music", would be more precise, while the shorter version, ″Palazzetto Bru Zane″, would be more concise. As stated before, I would really like to hear other users' opinions on the matter. CharlesVilliers (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to have only one or two others comment on a move proposal, and before trying to advertise it more widely you should read wp:canvassing. There are several ways in which users become aware of the discussion. For my part, I regularly check the listings at WP:RMB and WP:RME and see whether I can help with any of the discussions, and in particular whether (being an administrator or "admin") I can close any of the discussions either by performing the move or by declining the request; If I can't see a consensus to do either then I often offer my own views, as above. Another group who will see this are the members of the several WikiProjects listed at the top of this talk page. You really should have read WP:AT before nominating the article (hence "nom") for this move (see WP:official names which lists some of the places this is requested), but you seem now to have done so, thank you! I hope you have also read WP:COI as requested some time ago on your user talk page... is it applicable? You have not replied there either way. Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for elaborating a bit on the process. I am strongly convinced that the proposed title would be more suitable for the encyclopedia. It is by far more intuitive to call the centre Centre de musique romantique française. Still, this is not the ordinarily, commonly and officially used name for the Palazzetto Bru Zane. It took me some time to realise that. The page being named as it currently is might confuse other people all the more. This being said, my resources are limited, and I don't see myself canvassing for the cause, but I remain hoping other users will share their view with us. What concerns the COI, I have read the information, but saw no reason to reply explicitly. If I had one, I would have disclosed it. CharlesVilliers (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Nom has now provided some relevant evidence, see above. Andrewa (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2017 (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.