Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert


 * See also
 * Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1–D 500)
 * Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 501–D 998)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 56

Key/incipit
I have removed this column because only a few of the entries detailed the key of the composition, most of the column was in the German language regarding titles of the compositions, and some cells were blank altogether. I hope this clarifies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that the German incipit often is by what a composition is recognizable. - I'd prefer the key in a different column. Most instrumental works are differentiated by key. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have the name of the composition, the Deutsch number, and notes. The key of the composition is good information to have but only some of the "key/incipit" column is regarding the composition key. It's hard to argue that German words make a composition recognisable when most readers don't know German. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The incipt is not just the "German language title". And having keys for instrumental music is pretty important for many of them. I agree they should be in a different column (which would help make the whole thing look better too). While I do appreciate trying to rid some of the fluff, maybe you should stop with the editing of things you know nothing about (the spurious works should be returned too, and on Bach as well. I mean, how the hell could anyone have a list of Bach works and NOT include the Minuet in G??) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you avoiding personal attacks now? A column for the keys is good, but only some of that column is the keys. That particular work was not composed by Bach, it was composed by someone else. If you would like to start an article about works wrongly attributed to Bach, I have a copy of those works on my user page. It's good to see you're not exactly name calling anymore but I don't think what you're saying here is calm and in good nature. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Incipits 2
So now, without discussion, you removed all incipits when they are equal to the title. That renders the sort by incipit rather useless, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to have a column that describes what keys the compositions are in, but there isn't a reasonable place for those German and Italian words in that column. If you're saying it should be labelled as a key column, I agree. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We talked about "key" in a different column above. This is just incipits. I think it's useful to have them, because a reader might search for that rather than the "title", and it makes sense to have them sortable, and this article is probably the one place where you can do that. Why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Crazy how we go from a horridly overstuffed article filled with pointless shit to a decimated article missing a lot of key info. Crap like this is why I stopped most of my editing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many things that we could have columns for that people could theoretically be searching. We already have a place for the song titles that people would be searching, and what I removed was all in German and Italian when this is English Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you even understood that I miss sorting incipits alphabetically. You can't do that when you removed many of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I...no...I...what....what the hell *brain explodes* ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

old numbers
It's still very common to come across documents using the old D numbers, at least the 966+ ones.

The old→new section of the table is broken now. But that's not *all* of the renumbering.

Some, but *not* all, of the information is in the "Additional info" column scattered through the table.

65.183.206.186 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please explain
Can you explain this edit? The edit summary claims this to be a size reduction but it appears all that was done is moving the table into smaller articles and then putting them back into this article as templates. Is this an attempt to keep the table but avoid detection of the article's size? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "Is this an attempt to keep the table but avoid detection of the article's size?" – no. This was a size reduction to avoid WP:CHOKING in edit mode (since, before the split, the table could only be edited by loading it entirely in the browser). Now there's no need for that any more: the table can be edited in portions, by editing the "by year" pages, which each are smaller. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That would apply to editing the tables, but not to displaying them which is generally considered more important. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that appears to be unproblematic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)