Talk:List of compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies

Excellent start
Thanks Gerda for your work in collating the information and creating this list article. I'm no expert, but could I make a few suggestions? I've just noticed that it's using a template to create the table. Perhaps I could extend Classical composition header to allow the use of alternate labels for the columns? --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Field titles:
 * 2) I suggest "Notes", perhaps, instead of "Detail" - and normally notes tend to be placed in the penultimate column {before References).
 * 3) "Year" or "Date" or even "Composition", instead of "Time"?
 * 4) Is "Librettist" a better title than "Text"?
 * 5) I checked David Pountney, a near-contemporary of mine, and his article states he was only wrote the libretto for The Doctor of Myddfai, Mr Emmet Takes a Walk and Kommilitonen! (Baumgartner, Edwin (July 22, 2009). "David Pountney, der Herr der Seebühne" ("David Pountney, The Lord of the Lake Stage"). Wiener Zeitung), not The Martyrdom of St Magnus, which states Davies himself was the librettist.


 * Thank you. Classical composition header already allows the use of alternate headers. We could code


 * and get


 * All thanks for the template go to Alakzi, sadly missed. I would not be happy with the details at the end, because they are related to the title and help the understanding what a piece is, often better than "Genre" which is a rather unprecise thing but needed for sorting. We could leave the header for the second column blank, which sometimes contains a full title, sometimes a characterization such as Monodrama. - Good catch, that librettist, please fix such things yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of the "Text" field which I suggested "Librettist" for, but was fixed at "Text". I've just to accept an alternative for that field, e.g.:
 * I was thinking more of the "Text" field which I suggested "Librettist" for, but was fixed at "Text". I've just to accept an alternative for that field, e.g.:


 * Alakzi is sadly missed indeed. We couldn't leave the header for the second field blank because we'd break accessibility for screen readers which really need something as a header in every case. I hope you don't mind me raising the David Pountney question rather than amending myself. I'm really not expert enough to be certain I hadn't missed something. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That could be done, and thank you for adding flexibility. Often texts are not only the name of a librettist, but real texts, a psalm, a poem. What then? I would normally say "by so-and-so", to clarify that so-an-so isn't the text, but then can't sort, or could I? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If "Text" is the best option on a particular page, then of course we should use it for the header; at least we have the option now. As a quick fix for the "by so-and-so" (nicely idiomatic!), if you write, it will display "By Peter Maxwell Davies", but sort as "Davies, Peter Maxwell". Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It helps but is clumsy to code, - perhaps the search within the "text" column isn't even useful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * But sortname is inflexible - it only caters for names. sort lets you specify precisely what you want to display and what you want to sort by. Actually they are all deprecated now, but I don't find the new scheme an improvement, so I won't bother implementing it. --RexxS (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sort and sortname can be retrofitted to work with data-sort-value; see sort/sandbox and the example below:
 * Both sort and sortname can be retrofitted to work with data-sort-value; see sort/sandbox and the example below:


 * ... or even better ...


 * Izkala (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Title
"Compositions" is not an accurate entry for title. I suggest either excluding the parameter (which will result in the article title displaying above the image) or including it but leaving it empty (which will result in nothing displaying above the image). In either case, we can provide a link to the composer in the caption if such is desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think is an accurate title for "Compositions" if not "Commpositions"? The list is not complete, therefore "List of compositions" seems not precise. The casual reader should see at a glance - above the image - that the article is not about the person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If "List of compositions" is not an accurate description of what is contained in this article, I don't know why we would use that as the article title. It isn't "Complete list of compositions", after all. That being said, "article title" is not the same as title. Consider Requiem (Reger) - the article title and what is contained in title do not match, because "Requiem" and not "Requiem (Reger)" is the title of the work being described. Here there is no single title for the works being described, and so no value should be given for title no matter what the article title is. That's the point of value pairs - we should know that in all cases of infobox musical composition, title gives the title of the work (not a descriptor). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "List" was in the lead, but reverted. Would you agree to type=Compositions, - a parameter kept vague intentionally? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No - again, we are trying to shoehorn a description of multiple works into parameters meant for one, and I just don't agree that it makes sense to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have other articles about more than one piece, such as Chorale cantata (Bach) and String quartets (Waterhouse), - no problem so far, - I don't see yours, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, the practice doesn't make any more sense there - the first makes it seem like only a single cycle is being described, and the second a single work. The template just isn't designed to accommodate this use-case. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I know I designed the template. Bach cantata is like that since 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, the template isn't designed for that (Bach cantata uses a different template which arguably isn't either, but this isn't the place to discuss that). In this case, "Compositions" is not an appropriate entry for either title or type; would either of the two options I've suggested above be acceptable to you? If not, why not? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is not the place, you are right. The current version of this page tells the reader clearly that the article is about compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies, which is what I want to express. Please discuss on the template talk why you think title can't be a generic term, such as "String quartets", clearly a plural not in title case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this page is the place to discuss the misuse of the parameter in this specific case, as the template documentation already specifies that it be used for "title of the composition" which doesn't exist here. If the reader is smart enough to figure out that String quartets is not a title simply because Q is not capitalized, then surely the reader is smart enough to figure out that an article titled "List of compositions" is a list of compositions without putting the word "Compositions" above the image. Alternatively, if we must have something above the image, we can simply display the article title above the image, and link the composer's name in the caption. I just don't understand why it is so important to have the non-title "Compositions" in a parameter designed for the title of a single work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the template may have been designed for one work, it seems the best choice for a group also, similar in having the composer as a parameter, not somewhere in an image caption. Trying to not invent a new template: which parameter name would you accept for an alternative? name (already available)? group? topic? you name it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, can you please explain to me why it is so important to have the word "Compositions" appear in any parameter? We already have the article title to tell us the topic of the article, and you already have other data moved into the image caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it's important. I said it should be distinguished at a glance from the article of the composer, with the same image. In an infobox about a person, we repeat that name on top of the image, - why not here? - I will not easily understand why an article about an opera comes with nothing but the image of the librettist, not telling people that it's not about that person. I don't understand, but respect that author's preference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So then why is the option to display the article title above the image not acceptable? Why create a whole new parameter for something that isn't important? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't object to nameList of compositions, composerPeter Maxwell Davies but think it's less elegant than what we have, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then create a generic Header and fill it with List of compositions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think of it like a book cover; if the title's left empty, it just feels wrong. If 'Compositions' is a no-go (though I don't really see what the issue with it is), then I'd rather we had 'List of compositions'.  Izkala (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Compositions" is perfectly fine, this is about musical works. I think this is a distinction without a difference (FWIW, "titles" sounds like a book author, to be honest). Also, I think the style preferences of the article creator should get some respect.   Montanabw (talk)  13:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the distinction? I don't get it.  Izkala (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is about musical works, but it isn't about a musical work titled Compositions - that's the issue, using a parameter meant for a single work title to encompass a descriptive term. Izkala, if name is included in the template code but not filled, then 'List of compositions by Peter Maxwell Davies' displays above the image; I have no objection to that display. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, that didn't even cross my mind. How about this?  Izkala (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, per above "Compositions" is not a title and should not be in title. That's why I suggested a generic header above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of the parameter is a technical detail. It makes no difference if it's called 'title', 'header' or 'potato'.  Izkala (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If we decided that the parameter containing the title of a musical composition should be called potato, it would still be wrong to have "Compositions" as its value here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By that logic we should remove the infobox altogether. After all, 'List of compositions' is not a composition.  Izkala (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I went for a walk (Sunday, cherry blossom), hope you like my idea: work should be neutral enough to cover also a body of works. What I don't understand: the reader doesn't even see how the parameter is coded, so will not be confused anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If all we care about is what the reader sees, then the template on the right works. After all, Izkala is absolutely correct: 'List of compositions' is not a composition, no matter what label we use for that description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What objection(s) do you have to this option? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We care about more than "what the reader sees": that it's musical compositions, not general, that the parameters are specific, composer a composer, for example. Oppose this version. (I thought silence was a polite way to do that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Gerda, the next time you take me to task for opposing the use of an infobox, I am going to remind you of this discussion ;-) In the meantime, I see we have a call for consensus on this fine point (as it seems to me) of subatomic formatting. Could we perhaps have a clear statement of the available options, and a nomination of one of them to be adopted?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really ;) - Look around (articles of composers, actors etc.): there's some sort of consensus that the creator of an article or someone who elevates it to higher quality is the first to make an editorial choice, such as an infobox yes or no. (This concept may be not a great idea, but it's followed. We might discuss that.) I did, with some compromises following. Someone who wishes something different will need good reasons and consensus.

I oppose this version (first shown above, then somewhere, both confusing), copied here for clarity, with smaller images:


 * label2=Comment
 * data2=Alt A}}

The version now then in the article:

Yes, they LOOK similar. The differences are obvious but we can spell them out:
 * a general infobox vs. dedicated "musical composition"
 * general parameters vs. specifically "composer", "catalogue", "composed" (the latter two missing)
 * subheader = "by composer"??? (how is that a subheader? how many times have I been told to use only true subheaders for parameter subheader?)
 * fixed image size (to be avoided)
 * no hint at the scope of his work, which is now at least in the caption of the article version (it was in parameter genre before, which I liked better, but compromised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If we care about more than what the reader sees - if we care about what coding is used for what - then we cannot put something that is not a composition title in a parameter meant for a composition title. I've suggested several ways to avoid this, but the version now in the article persists in doing it.
 * "Composed" is included in Alt A, with the correct dates. "Catalogue" in the version in the article is wrong, per below.
 * "by composer" is a subheader in the version that's in the article too, as you can confirm by looking at the coding for the template itself. If for some reason that shouldn't be a subheader, then that's a problem in both versions not just the alternative.
 * Fixed image size can easily be addressed, I'm certainly not attached to it.
 * Captions are intended to be succinct explanations of what is pictured, not to shoehorn in a lot of additional text.
 * To the left are the present version and several possible alternatives (with the addition of comment to allow easy reference to each). I've explained above my objections to the present version. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume this is an invitation to express a preference. First, I assume that when you say "to the left" you mean "stage left", which is to say on the right from the viewer's point of view. Second, I agree that the current photo caption is unnecessarily long. Third, I do not know or care about what coding is used for what, provided that it produces a sensible result for the reader. Finally, if I had to make an aesthetic choice from these options, I think AltB has the edge, for two reasons: first, the heading is the least fussy and distracting; second (and I do not for a moment suppose this cannot be adjusted in the other options to suit my preference) I like having the composer's full name, instead of just the surname. Alt C seems the least satisfactory, since in my aesthetic judgement, if you are going to have an infobox at all, you really ought to have a caption at the top. Apart from all this, I fail to understand what purpose this spare, whittled-down design serves, apart from making a nice frame for the photograph of the composer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Gerda's version April 20
Taking on board some ideas, I propose this (Alt D). I do care about coding. By the reason that title has to hold a title (transparency, identification), I wish that the composer appears in composer (not within subheader), and the time of composition appears in composed (not in some unprecise label1). I see no reason to use a general infobox when there is one designated for musical compositions infobox musical composition, which is now included in 604 articles. The standard for these is (as for infobox opera) to have the composer linked above the image. I see no good reason to have the top of this list article look different from his single works, compare Symphony No. 1. I have dropped the catalogue numbers per below, although I think they would show easily the sheer volume of his work. For composition time: I used the times of the compositions in this article. When an earlier one is addded, that should be adjusted. I learned long captions instead of parameters as a compromise, compare Symphony No. 1 (Sibelius) (by Smerus). I prefer parameters, and because genre seems overly precise, now suggest form, - we could also use comment or misc. The template is flexible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. I favor using a dedicated template.  I'm floored this discussion is still going on.  Seems that you've got something solid.   Montanabw (talk)  08:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish to emphasize that my expressed preference was not a strong one. I see two flaws in the most recent proposal, however. The first one I have already mentioned, which is the cluttered and fussy look of having three different type styles mixed in the header (small caps, c/lc, and a smaller font for the "by" line). This is not fatal, only an aesthetic opinion. Perhaps the other problem can easily be overcome by people who know about coding, and that is that "Form" should be in the plural, since there is/are more than one form following that heading. That said, I think it is useful to have this category, which helps address my objection that there is actually no useful information provided in the infobox.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 1a: Calling Andy and Izkala: Can we do without displaying "List of"?
 * 1b: Compare the symphony: the composer-line is intentionally smaller print, consistently.
 * 2: Nikkimaria is right that the template is mostly for one work, for which the plural is not wanted. I think it can be understood. Alternatively, how is "misc"? (Imagine the image.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Compositions" is still not a title. If we're going to care about the coding, we cannot put "Compositions" in that parameter no matter what alias we use for it. Since this is not a single work, there is no reason it must look exactly the same as a single work. And since the article states he has works going back to 1942, it makes sense to use that date even if the table hasn't caught up yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the year. The "different look" was achieved by "LIST OF", but at the prize of three different styles on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That leaves the problem of using something not a title as a title - is there any mutually acceptable way to avoid that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Create a different template for more than one composition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What would such a template look like? Another possibility not pictured here is a generic header as mentioned above. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am at the limits of my English, obviously. Are you saying that you find title and name unacceptable, but would accept header? (Please understand that for me, they are more or less the same.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if it's simply added as an alias for the existing parameter - I was imagining a replacement in the same position in reading mode (much as the article title appears in that position when the parameter is excluded). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I don't get what you mean by "Reading mode". Can you make an example of coding and looks, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading mode as opposed to while editing. Look at Alt A - a generic above produces text in the same position and format as name currently does in this template. (I know Alt A uses a different template - what I'm suggesting is to add that generic parameter to this one). Nikkimaria (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that it would not make a difference to the reader. If wanted - I still don't see why necessary - how would it be coded in relation to both the default pagename and to the wanted composer which I believe should appear just like in single compositions, for consistency? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We already know that there is no difference for the reader between using infobox and using infobox musical composition when conveying the same information. We also decided above that we wanted to care about code, which means that what goes in which parameter does matter. We just want to add this text in the place and format used by name, but not using that parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we use "we" too much without saying who we is.
 * I suggest to use infobox musical composition for a musical composition. I suggest to use infobox musical composition even for a group of musical compositions, but if you have problems with that, we should create something for you. (Normally, we rather try to merge and simplify.)) The general infobox doesn't work for me. If we care about coding something unprecise like above should be avoided, "above" what? I find it worse than title, name and header.
 * I think that a reader - whatever the parameter - will understand Compositions as a generic name of several works (even without LIST OF), vs. Compositions which would be the title of a single work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A regular reader doesn't see a difference between infobox and infobox musical composition any more than between name and above and header. We (meaning you and I) aren't disagreeing about what the reader sees or should see, at the moment. You argue this is a list of musical compositions so should use an infobox for musical compositions; it's the same logic that says a parameter meant for a composition title should not be filled with something that is not a composition title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I offered a solution: create a new template, let's say infobox musical compositions, which has as header the description of what it contains, such as "String quartets" or "Compositions". It would be needlessly complicated if you ask me, but acceptable. To have the description under "above" and the composer under "subheader" is unacceptable, by the same logic that "title" should be a title. (I disagree, btw, that the choice of a suitable infobox follows "the same logic" as the suitability of one parameter.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Article title" and title don't have the same meaning. In the case of this article, there is no appropriate entry for title because there is no single composition title to put there. You could, however, simply create header in the existing template, as one of several possible solutions. And there is no functional difference between calling that parameter header or above (or potato!), so long as they are not aliases of the existing title. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (Can't help feeling that "Article title" and above also don't have the same meaning.) I asked above already: if I wanted header as an independent parameter, how could it be coded, with the default of page name respected. Asking Izkala and Andy, again. - If you could live with header, just not title, I'd be willing to replace title by header. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter if they're aliases of 'title'? I'm sorry, but the point of all this is completely lost on me.  Is there some other issue other than what editors see when editing the infobox?  Izkala (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because title is meant to be limited to things that are actually titles, not things we happen to want to display in the header. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this an agreeable arrangement? Izkala (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like you still have list_title set up as a synonym of title, correct?
 * Why do we need to have the sc formatting? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no way for it not to be a 'synonym' - the root infobox has only got one parameter for the header. As it is, 'list_title' takes precedence over 'title'.
 * We don't need the small caps formatting; it tickled my aesthetic bone so I'd left it there. Izkala (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't realized point 1. That presents a problem. What about adopting title from the root infobox, then? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the problem is. Izkala (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use infobox musical composition, we should use its parameters appropriately. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We could make infobox musical composition more flexible, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a technical detail that's of no consequence to anybody. We're not striving for semantic perfection in our template code.  Izkala (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then why not use infobox? It's certainly got more flexibility, and no concern about semantic perfection. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can split them apart so that both list_title and title can be used at the same time, if that makes any difference... Izkala (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What problem are you trying to address here? I, too, am not at all clear about what might be seen as "inappropriate" about the use proposed. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * name/title/etc in infobox musical composition is intended to contain the title of a musical composition. However, in this particular case there is no single composition title, and so the parameter should not be filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an assertion without merit. yes indicates that the name/ title applies to a list, not a work. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an assertion supported by the template documentation and by most instances of the template, which affects interpretation of the pair. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Opus numbers
If we are going to quote "opus" numbers here, I think we should at least explain their origin. Max himself didn't use opus numbers – he often used to joke that he called the Trumpet Sonata "Opus 1", but then stopped using opus numbers because he thought they sounded pretentious. I don't think any of his publishers mentions opus numbers. The "Opus" and "WoO" (Werk ohne Opuszahl - not "WOO", please note!) numbers listed here were, I believe, devised and published in N. Jones and R. McGregor "Peter Maxwell Davies's Opus and WoO Numbers: A New Work List", MT, Vol. 151 (2010), 53–86, i.e. many years after most of the works were written and published. If anyone has library access to MT they may be able to throw more light on this than I can. --Deskford (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Go ahead, add that, you know more than I do. I am more familiar with Reger, who used opus numbers, but at least one (145a) was added by a publisher. WoO, yes, see there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Deskford is perfectly correct about WOO vs WoO, at least so far as Beethoven is concerned. The official Max Davies website, however, uses WOO (not a very happy formulation, I admit). I do have access to MT, and will gladly consult Jones and McGregor's worklist for clarification. FWIW, there are a number of mature (but minor) works in the catalogue that lack Opus numbers, but instead are given these WOO numbers, up to something like WOO 150.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Question is, do we use what the composer and his website use, or do we follow our house rules and others? Beethoven and Reger wrote "op.", not "Op." - When I began Requiem (Reger) 5 years ago, I felt a strange discrepancy between the handwriting of the composer and our house style. By now, I got almost used to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just perused Jones and McGregor. Thanks for the reference, Deskford. It does indeed appear to be the source for the Opus numbers used on the official website, though I have not yet made a comparison. Under these circumstances, I suppose the website's use of "WOO" (instead of the Beethovenian WoO) must be regarded as a typographical quirk. The same would be true, I think, for things like Op. vs op.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would be much happier to trust MT than Maxopus. For all its "official" status, I often find Maxopus unreliable – I presume it is maintained by a publicity agent who may have little understanding of the origin of the term "WoO". --Deskford (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a self-published website, it certainly fails the Reliable Sources Test, even if it is valuable in its own way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Peter Maxwell Davies's website is no longer active, so I cannot verify that. However, I found this. Maybe, we should use that list instead. Ron Oliver (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)