Talk:List of 17th-century chaconnes

Breaking up the list
I agree with Trappist the Monk that this list of 17th-century chaconnes, constructed by me, is enormous and that it benefits from being broken into sections. Broken into sections it is easier to navigate and to edit. However, having it be one whole table also offers benefits, such as that a single sorting action can group together all of the 17th-century chaconnes written by the same composer, or all of the 17th-century chaconnes found on one compact disk. Fortunately, there is a way to have the list be both broken into sections and be one whole table, which offers both sets of benefits at the same time. That is the way I had it originally and the way I have restored it now. 18thCHist (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As you wish. I have changed it however so that at least (I think) it looks better.


 * I have also begun to simplify the references column. There is no need to repeat each reference in whole – Hudson appears some 50 times in the list.  I have given an example in the first two decades of how that works. I propose to continue that and then make the table unsortable by references since §Bibliography is already sorted by author name.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the table as a whole now looks better. The references are also better in the simplified form you have established. Thank you for the improvements. 18thCHist (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

d', de, von, etc
This is, I think, not quite right. These prepositions aren't part of a person's forename in the same way that James is part of John Audubon's forename. The prepositions are commonly dropped when referring to to a person by last name von Goethe is Goethe, de Chambonnières is Chambonnières, etc. But, as far a I know, which admittedly isn't all that far, when formally stated as we are doing here, the prepositions belong with the surname and not as they are now with the forename.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "nobiliary particle" (French, "particule nobiliaire"; German, "Adelsprädikat") in a nobleman or noblewoman's name is sometimes included in the surname. However, in alphabetical lists of names the more common current authoritative usage is to place the nobiliary particle at the end of the forenames, even in the somewhat clunky case of "d'". That's how it's done, for example, on the International Music Score Library Project website, the destination of many of the links on this list. For an authoritative book example, "Webster's New Biographical Dictionary" also follows that procedure. For practical purposes, it's much easier in scanning down a list not to have intermittent appearances of "de," "von," etc. interfering with the alphabetical order of the names. I admit that there is no definitive standard regarding this issue. "The Chicago Manual of Style," 16th ed. (2010), writes: "Indexing names with particles.  In alphabetizing family names containing particles, the indexer must consider the individual's personal preference (if known) as well as traditional and national usages.  'Merriam-Webster's Biographical Dictionary' is an authoritative guide for well-known persons long deceased. . . . Charles de Gaulle is good exmple of the opportunity for occasional editorial discretion:  'Webster's' and the Library of Congress, for example, list the French statesman under 'Gaulle'; the entry in 'American Heritage' is under 'de Gaulle'--the usage normally preferred by Chicago." The problem gets worse for famous people of the Italian Renaissance, who are often known by their first names. "Webster's New Biographical Dictionary" lists Leonardo da Vinci under "Leonardo." 18thCHist (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)