Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert/Archive 1

Merged
See Talk:List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 501–D 998) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compositions by Franz Schubert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217160530/http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * the URL has changed (to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm ), but the page is not dead, so no need to go to the internet archive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Table
Thinking about making List of compositions by Franz Schubert a list in tabular format instead of a redirect. If this works, with a sortable list some of the other lists need no longer to be on separate pages.


 * 1) D '51: Deutsch number in the first version of the Deutsch catalogue (1951)
 * 2) D utd: Most recent (up to date) Deutsch catalogue number
 * 3) Op. / pbl: Opus number (p indicates Post. = posthumous); date of first publication in parenthesis
 * 4) AGA: Alte Gesamt-Ausgabe = Franz Schubert's Werke: Kritisch durchgesehene Gesammtausgabe. Indicates genre/instrumentation:
 * 5) * Series II: Overtüren und Andere Orchesterwerke (Johann Nepomuk Fuchs, 1886)
 * 6) * Series V: Streichquartette (Nos. 1-15) (Joseph Hellmesberger and Eusebius Mandyczewski, 1890)
 * 7) * Series IX: Pianoforte zu vier Händen (Anton Door, 1888)
 * 8) * Series XV: Dramatische Musik (Johann Nepomuk Fuchs, 1893)
 * 9) * Series XX: Sämtliche einstimmige Lieder und Gesänge (Eusebius Mandyczewski, 1894-1895)
 * 10) * Series XXI: Supplement (Eusebius Mandyczewski, 1897)
 * 11) *# Instrumentalmusik No. 1-5
 * 12) *# Instrumentalmusik No. 6-13
 * 13) *# Instrumentalmusik No. 14-
 * 14) *# Gesangsmusik
 * 15) NSA: NGA/NSA/NSE = New Schubert Edition, also indicates genre/instrumentation:
 * 16) * Series I: Church Music
 * 17) * Series II: Stage Works
 * 18) * Series IV: Lieder
 * 19) * Series V: Orchestral Works
 * 20) * Series VI: Chamber Music
 * 21) *# Octet and Nonet
 * 22) *# String Quintet
 * 23) *# String Quartets I
 * 24) *# String Quartets II
 * 25) *# String Quartets III
 * 26) *# String Trios
 * 27) *# Works for Piano and several instruments
 * 28) *# Works for Piano and one instrument
 * 29) *# Dances for several instruments
 * 30) * Series VII: Piano Music
 * 31) *# Works for Piano Four Hands
 * 32) *# Works for Piano Two Hands
 * 33) * Series VIII: Supplement, 2. Schubert's Studies
 * 34) Name: unique name, links to article
 * 35) Key signature / incipit: incipit mostly for songs, other compositions by key signature, except for theatre works: type of composition in brackets.
 * 36) Date: Date of composition / autograph
 * 37) Additional info: e.g. movements, text author,...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Wow Great and a huge amount of work you have done on this Francis Schonken! can I ask, on the articles table now, did Schubert release Catalog number 1 first, so that he published 1b and 1c and 1a and 1 itself was released posthumously? I was trying to sort to find what he released and when, fragment and posthumous releases aside. As an aside Terry Pratchett just had his unfinished works steamrolled as per his will? just saying, lol. I may have a sort table that could fix the above and that would also reduce the size and all that improvement may bring, let me know and we can experiment on a sandbox121.99.108.78 (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is no relation between Deutsch (D) number and order of publication, none at all. There is a "weak" relationship between opus numbers and order of publication (not all works published during Schubert's life even had an opus number). See:
 * Third paragraph of intro of this list;
 * Schubert opus/Deutsch number concordance (which does however not list the compositions without opus number, but allows to sort those that have an opus number by publication date)
 * Third column of this table (which allows to sort by opus number, and gives those without opus number by first publication date).
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Francis Schonken, cool, thank you, that makes a lot of sense, next question is do all the columns need to be sortable? i.e. OP pbl seems unneeded and covered by either AGA or NSA? it could be possible to delete entire column? Key/incipit not sure anyone would sort by this but I will take your advice, also on this "incipit" or "implicit"? seems more correct usage? Additional info seem unneeded to be sortable, and where you have substituted actual values for sort-purposes only, the wiki machine should read the values correctly, hence the "data-sort-value=" is not needed for any of those columns, including the substituted for sort purposes "ZZZZ"'s which could be reduced to just "Z" or left blank depending on need, functionality and usage, that's it for now, I will start writing a little substitution script which we can test as required in a day or two once we finalise best practice, cheers 121.99.108.78 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it makes sense to sort by Opus number and publication date: see my previous reply above. Neither AGA nor NSA has "first publication" of all items in the list, but they both contain Schubert compositions never published before.
 * incipit is correctly spelled (it means: opening words of the text); sorting by text incipit (7th column) is of course a useful thing: for instance, it shows whether Schubert set the same text multiple times, or helps when looking for a certain text, whether Schubert set it (if you're not sure how to spell the incipit in German).
 * Of course the sortability of the last column makes sense: for instance it sorts Schubert's vocal compositions by text author which can be found in relevant literature, e.g. here and here.


 * Some of the data-sort-values are for the correct alphabetical collation of German names e.g. "Wär" sorting as "War", etc. Likewise, more than one "Z" is sometimes needed to get some rows after anything else when sorting according to certain columns. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again Francis Schonken, had a bit of a look around and a ponder, just spit balling now,

If we move the d utd to the first column some of the sort issue may/will disappear, it also in many ways the main reference, some sort-value's function and "ZZZZ" etc could then be removed, thoughts? Else, the sheer amount of work you have done, anchors, redirects etc much kudos to you sir121.99.108.78 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A column's position does not affect the way the software handles its sorting: this is not going to bring the advantage you seem to expect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again Francis Schonken, this will be my last contribution to this, as again, I see the sheer volume of work you put in both on this article and on all of wiki, I am just trying to reduce the size a percentage to alleviate the discussions about splitting as this seems counter-intuitive to me after such consolidation of his work. I have the last three suggestions. 1. Where the is only numbers in the entire column we could use Template:Number table sorting (and or its variants), this could also work for many of the dates (coded as 1810.0101 rather than 1810-01-01, substituting nts for data-value-sort, saves 12 characters per line, possibly up to 24,000 characters? 2. We could short code some of the "keys" as in "Key D Major" to "KDMa" saving only 7 per line, this may not be feasible or save overly much and finally 3. The "ZZZZ"'s and "XXXX"'s should be able to be reduced to a single character or if needed "Z1" and "Z2" etc. I will leave this with you thanks again good luck.121.99.108.78 (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again Francis Schonken, I just saw discussion below, I think we can mitigate this quite some and also even add some further functionality, I would need a day or so to write a script and we can test then do the main article, I would expect a 12-15% reduction in table size overall.121.99.108.78 (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverting of edits
I don't understand why you reverted my edits at. You left the reason rv, unhelpful COSMETIC and there is no such Wikipedia rule as WP:COSMETIC. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COSMETICBOT --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It only applies to bots and I have never heard of such rule on Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is policy, and applies to the script you were using (which is a type of bot edit). Please familiarise yourself with applicable policies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is far too long
It's roughly nine times longer than the max article length--it needs to be split. A logical candidate would be by year. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah, max article length doesn't apply to (sortable) tables. Besides, splits of this list exist as separate pages (see navbox →). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Lists should be split if there is a "natural" way to do so and since there already is a method of splitting them in this article, then this should be split. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't be split. Having a full sortable list is extremely important, even with a large one such as Schubert's. Just the 'AGA' and 'NSA' columns should be removed. Especially considering the NSA all link to a commercial website and the AGA just to the IMSLP...which at least is kinda relevant, but it's still not particularly needed, especially considering how many individual compositions have their own pages, all of which should theoretically link to IMSLP there. Removing the links for the lyrics of the songs would also cut down on size nicely. Of course Francis Schonken will disagree since he added it all. (Also the Bach composition list is even worse but I suppose I digress...) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Deutsch catalogue, both AGA and NSA classification are given for each entry. Both classifications give a meaningful "by genre" sortability of the list. List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre follows NSA, thus a single POV: the sortable table is NPOV while it allows to sort according to two major "by genre" classifications. We could give them without the links:
 * For AGA I wouldn't know what advantage would be acquired by omitting the links: maybe 10% of Schubert's compositions have separate articles (probably even far less than 10%). If you want to start a new article on a Schubert composition, this list gives a nice head start: some basic links for any of the composer's works are given in the table. As long as the separate article doesn't exist yet, this list is the best of what Wikipedia has to offer in terms of references and external links for each composition (I also suppose many of Schubert's compositions wouldn't pass WP:GNG as a separate article).
 * For the NSA links: these serve as references for the data in each row, which is an acceptable reason for keeping them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok let's take another angle. First, why are AGA and NSA needed in such a list? I know people hate the term, but they really are getting into "cruft". The status of the posthumous publications isn't particularly notable for each individual work. Yes the publications as a whole are notable -- which is why they have individual pages. But seriously if you're looking through a list of works to find (to choose a random number) D. 353, who the heck cares if it's VI/4 No. 12 of the NSA or whatever (and again, no matter what, linking to a commercial site is a nono). And the IMSLP general links can be kept for compositions without individual pages, just put them in the title column. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this would be "another angle". The Deutsch catalogue considers both classifications meaningful. Who are we to decide otherwise? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and said catalog is a 500 page book. This is an article in an encyclopedia. The catalog also has incipits, lists every movement, and has detailed notews in some cases. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, 500 pages (and more) summarized in one article, here is what Wikipedia can do for you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "...linking to a commercial site is a nono" – incorrect, Wikipedia references link far more often to commercial sites than to non-profit ones (non-profit sites are often more problematic from a WP:RS point of view, while they often depend on user-generated or self-published content one way or another). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "...put [the IMSLP links] in the title column..." – I'd prefer to avoid mixing internal and external links in the 6th column: wouldn't that be rather confusing? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, see also this previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 56. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support of split. This is currently THE LARGEST ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA! Even if it is a sortable table, at some point it gets too long.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Other related earlier discussion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 (about using external links in a table by way of reference); See also applicable guidance at Content forking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I favour Melodia's solution, myself. I think that it is very important to have a single sortable list, but if this is too long and has to be cut somehow, I would rather do it by cutting some columns. Double sharp (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as is – A comprehensive sortable list in one place is easier to use for our readers than a dozen partial lists split by time period or by type of work. Browsing and rendering of long lists on modern computers is not an issue. Consider that the list is entirely composed of text, whereas many of our shorter articles include dozens of pictures, making them bulkier to download. To 's remarks, there must be one article on Wikipedia which is the longest. If we decide to split this one simply because it is the longest, then shall we split the second-longest when it becomes the longest? Recurring over this "rule", we would soon have an infinity of 0-length articles. — JFG talk 06:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as is. Even if not all readers can sort, for those who can the possibility is a great help which would get lost when split. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Split by year, this article is too large and will run into parsing problems.  your heap paradox/reductio ad absurdum is not an argument - we split large articles which are over a certain limit, not ad infinitum.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course my reductio ad absurdum was made in jest. Do you have any rebuttal to my main arguments: readers are better informed with a full list, and parsing/download/rendering work fine? I'm curious about your contention that the article "will run into parsing problems". Do you mean that it may eventually run into parsing problems if it grows further, or do you mean that it already has parsing issues? I don't see any technical limitations on the current version of the article, either on Wikimedia, in various browsers or in the mobile apps. Given that the article is essentially complete, I fail to see how it could run into future problems if it doesn't have such problems now. — JFG talk 07:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "...will run into parsing problems" – either it does, or it doesn't: unsubstantiated prophecies don't seem very useful here. Also Article size has "The maximum limit for Wikipedia is set by the MediaWiki software default article size limit, 2048 kilobytes (specifically, 2,098,175 bytes)": If you are convinced that parsing problems are inevitable below half of that size, then this is not the place to discuss or implement a recalibration of what the Wikipedia software is supposed to present as digestible for the web-devices of its readership. In other words, then this discussion has to be taken elsewhere (e.g. here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 'you fail to see how it could run into future problems if it doesn't have such problems now'. It is large, it takes a lot of time to parse, and if more templates are added on this scale (which should be done to unify the referencing style) then that is not going to work. And I disagree that multiple, smart-split lists cannot satisfy the (anyway perceived) need of the reader. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The referencing style was discussed in advance and implemented accordingly. It is "unified". We're far from the consensus needed per WP:CITEVAR for a mayor style change. Worse, seems like you're trying to turn an unsubstantiated prophecy into a self-fulfilling prophecy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that I don't need to change the prophecy - my editing parser already chokes on the size of the article (syntax highlighting chokes on the size of it, I get hickups in the loading of the source, and it is near impossible to find anything in the table source in editing mode). Regarding the rest, WP:CCC.  As I show below, some of the inline external links are not references but external links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as is –The length is needed to be a comprehensive list, and there is no technical reason to create an artificial split, seriously, it becomes very difficult to search for a work across a dozen stubby lists to determine if a work was 1824 or 1825. Totally silly.  This list needs to be complete and in one place.  Montanabw (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as is Why take a comprehensive computerized presentation of information that logically goes together and return it to the old days of "see chapter 7 for the next group of years"? Drhoehl (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Excessive embedded external links
External links should not really be being embedded directly into the article n lieu of regular inline citations per WP:ELLIST, WP:EL and WP:CS. If the purpose of these links is to serve as a reliable source for the entry in question, an inline citation should be used instead. If the link is intended to be more of WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, it should be added to the "External links" section; however, it would be much better to add a link to one single page if possible, then one for each and every entry. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:ELLIST has "...This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." — all external links in the table are references.
 * 2) WP:EL has "Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source, but not to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website." – again: used as a reliable source.
 * 3) WP:CS does not mention the "table" exception in #1 above, nor the WP:RS exception in #2 above. As for replacing "...with more complete, properly formatted citations...", this is the issue addressed in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 ("...complete, properly formatted citations..." may burden article size even further). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the EL is serving as a citation, it should be formated as such since embeddded citations is a style which has been deprecated and is no longer recommended. Same goes for EL#cite_note-7, if the link is to a reliable source then it should be formatted as a ciation and not embedded into the article as it currently is done. That is what the "yes" example in that section is showing. Doing so provides more information about the cited source and may make it easier to fix the source if link rot becomes an issue. As for the talk page discussion on Jimbo Wales talk page, I think it would be better to have that discussion at WP:ELN since that is where EL matters tend to be discussed. I will add a Please see there to see if others have any opinions on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather a RSN matter though, so I copied the invitation there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That fine, but I was not questioning the reliablility of the sources; I was commenting on how the links are embedded into the article. Do you feel source reliability is an issue? If it is, then embedding the links is not going to make the sources any more reliable than they would be formatted as properly formatted citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ELN instructions are clear: "Concerns with links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard". I do not question that instruction. Maybe it is there in order to prevent to look at this from too narrow an angle, e.g. too limited to link presentation issues, while links used as references are a more complex matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So also here you agree "links used as references should be handled at the reliable sources noticeboard" - so they are references, then they should follow the style of the other references, and be within &lt;ref> tags. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

All points mentioned here by Francis Schonken suggest that the inline links are 'references'. In that case you are mixing reference-styles. It is probably better to use a proper referencing style using proper referencing templates instead of internal links, they are easier to maintain and to secure. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * please see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202, as I mentioned before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where did I suggest that you did not need to use individual sources? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, rather a RSN matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. It is a WP:MOS matter.  I can agree the references need to be there, but not in this way.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, how would you handle this stylistically? How I did was discussed well in advance (I've linked to several earlier discussions above, so I don't think it is necessary to repeat the links here). Apart from that, I'm all ears to sensible improvements of the approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like some of the links are used multiple times, so it might be possible to use WP:REFNAME for these instesd of embedding a link for each entry. The main full citation could be added to the "References" section with the footnote markers added to the table per WP:LDR; this may help minimize the markup added directly to the table and will keep all of the citations in one location to make editing them a bit easier. This could be done similarly for the rest of the links as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The start of an early version of the table is still above on this page in the section: feel free to experiment on that table. I've no prejudice against throwing that table in different shapes a few times on a talk page in the hope of converging towards an improved system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Taking the line that carries reference 19 - is [http://www.lieder.net/lieder/get_text.html?TextId=14520 Nehmt hin die Welt! rief Zeus aus seinen Höhen] a reference, or is it an external link. If it is the former (which I doubt) it is to be formatted as ref 19 (so with &lt;ref>-tags), otherwise it is an external link, in which case it does not belong, it should be to Nehmt hin die Welt! rief Zeus aus seinen Höhen, an article about the item. In the article about the item a link to the lyrics would be appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a reference for the fact that Schiller's "" opens with the words "Nehmt hin die Welt! rief Zeus aus seinen Höhen" (which doesn't follow from ref #19)
 * Seems like you're still in denial about the WP:ELLIST exception ("...This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria."); and about the WP:CITEVAR provisions ("...it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. [etc]"). Yes, you'd like another consensus, that much is clear, but it is not the current consensus, and you've done pretty little to convince me that the current consensus wouldn't be the best choice among available options. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, it is a reference for that? Good, so it should be within &lt;ref> tags.  And no, I am not in denial of that, but you seem to insist that these are not external links, they are references.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Overhead
There's a lot of overhead in the table, mostly sort keys. For instance, I started the bullet-list-to-sortable-table conversion before I knew about the 0 template which takes considerably less wiki-code characters than the sort keys I used for D numbers from 1 to 99, in the first two columns. Also, I wouldn't know whether that template generates less "post-expansion-to-html" code than the sort keys? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestion: thinking about the BDW template I created for use in the last column of the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach table I suppose something similar could be possible here, for instance for the many links to The LiederNet Archive website in the 7th column, it would be possible to create a template, for instance LNA, after which links such as this one"Hier am Hügel heißen Sandes" could be replaced byproducing an identical visible link, thus at least reducing the number of wiki-code characters (net downsizing would be 44 x 600 = 26400 characters if I counted correctly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Long Article, part 2
So someone put a hat note on the article, maybe this should be visited once again, especially given the one who ruined the article is banned for over 10 months. My comment above stands -- remove the AGA and NSA columns and drastically cut down on the redundant ILs (this should really be done as a matter of course regardless). I want to also say the ELs to the songs but I can kinda see those (obviously a direct link to lieder.net could be had). These alone would cut down on the size hugely. Splitting is emphatically the wrong direction, however. The summary at the bottom is unneeded as well (could easily be moved to Schubert Thematic Catalogue if it really needs to exist). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I've removed those two columns. No need to have external links for each work like that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * why add almost 300,000 bytes to this article of two columns of external links? That information could be found on the articles for each composition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am no byte counter but like the convenience of linking to a score, and to the publication in the Neue Schubert Ausgabe, especially for the works that have no article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's just not really the job of Wikipedia, it's not an online directory. Especially when it increases the size of the article by half, making it the largest article in all of English Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I didn't see this discussion before, - what does "redundant ILs" mean? - For Bach - as I came to understand only now - we have an article with just numbers and titles (BWV), and a long list of his compositions. Can we do it similarly here, a plain list (called "summary at the bottom" above) in D. (Deutsch Verzeichnis), and the table here with background?
 * After edit conflict: To provide access to a score not the "job" of Wikipedia? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Some article has to be the largest, so that argument is weak. Several editors have agreed above that the functionality of this table is helpful. Among other things, Wikipedia a compendium/almanac. That's what this page is. If a simpler version is needed, the previous pages 1–500 and 501–998 could be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure one has to be the largest. But when it's the largest because there's tons and tons of links, that IS a problem. As I said in the last discussion, the two columns are fancruft and really only never commented on because of the niche of the niche that this list brings. If this were a list of video games, an external link in every entry would get knocked down quicker than I could type this message (and please, no comments about some cultural difference between classical music and video games, that really isn't the point). The NSA list is especially problematic, as they link to a commerical website. How is anyone able to defend that?
 * As for the 'useful' argument....really? WP:USEFUL has been around far longer than any of us and I *know* you have to know about it, Gerda. I can see linking directly to the scores ONLY for the compositions that don't have their own pages (the score links should be on those pages) but again, what use, at ALL, do the NSA and AGA columns hold in a list like this?
 * As for "redundant ILs", I mean all those internal WP links that are repeated. That's pretty much standard WP practice -- no reason to, for instance, link SATB over and over. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The two columns are no fancruft. If it was links to some fan site, I'd agree to deleting. IMSLP, however, is so respected that we have a template for it, and has the old versions, while the official NSA has the new. Both concise and multifacetted. Why do without? We'd need them as references. Do you seriousy suggest to have the links not in the table, but instead add more characters for begin ref and end ref, and force the poor reader to jump back and forth in an article of this size? I defend NSA, as the critical edition people refer to, comparable to NBA.
 * No, I don't tell be a guideline what's useful. (I am not good in guideline observation, sorry.) I tell you purely from this readers's point of view that they are useful for me. Eiminating the links for pieces with an article would probably not help much because they will be the minority.
 * I understand ILs now. It's common practice in sortable tables to link every time, because with a different sort, the first position will change. However, when I have SATB in a table more than once (as in practically every Bach cantata, see BWV 214), I link in an explanation above the table, and don't link within. That could be done.
 * A split in two seems not useful because we'd loose the overall sort. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What do others think of splitting the "summary" to a different article, Chronological overview of compositions by Franz Schubert, or whatever? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no article that should be the largest article of Wikipedia. There have been many articles which have at one time been the largest article and they cover a wide range of topics. There are many articles which fail WP:ARTICLESIZE, and this is one of them. It's not for the sake of size though, it's because articles that exceed 100,000 bytes are often too lengthy for people to read usefully and are much harder to edit. The two columns absolutely are only useful to a niche audience and do not give readers useful information about the compositions, they are simply links to other websites, so this characterising as WP:FANCRUFT is correct. The first column is also redundant, we do not need two separate ways of listing these compositions when one of them is out of date and incomplete. When this table needs a table to explain how the table works, surely it must be clear there is a problem. As for removing the "summary", although that word does not exist anywhere on the article so I'm not sure what User:Gerda Arendt is referring to, that would likely be a good idea but it would only reduce the size of the article by a small fraction. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * About the first column I'm split. On the one hand, it's quite nessesarily that the info of the original catalog number is kept, though one could probably just add that info to the notes column, given the reletively minor differences between the original and revision (unlike, say, Mozart). As for the summary, I was referring to the section after the table that breaks down the D numbers into years and lists the supposedly major works in each. And Gerda, as for the IMSLP -- as I said, I could see it kept in the cases where there's no article (possibly linked from the title in those cases) but anyone who needs access the score of, say, the Trout Quintet can just as easily go to the article for the link. And again, regardless of it being the offical publisher, the direct links to the NSA *are* commercial and have no place here, and maybe even more importantly (and ironically, unlike the IMSLP links) don't even really provide any real info beyond "hey this is what's in this book we want you to buy". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As said above, to my understanding the links are helpful for easy verification of what is in the table, and IMSLP provides the music. I guess the composer would support that feature. "Summary" is the term that Melodia used for what in the article begins with header 1810. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why is it important that the D'51 numbers be kept? They redirect to the current numbers anyway and they're just another set of numbers.
 * As for external links as references, which shouldn't be necessary for each composition, we certainly don't need four of them for each composition, as many of them have. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

External links to the texts of the lieder are supplemental information that is much better accessible on a lied's title than in another format: they should be kept. Agree to remove the links to sheet music when there's a dedicated article for the work; keep it otherwise. Alternative D'51 catalog numbers can go. — JFG talk 08:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a copy on my user space of the external links. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)