Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy)

Title
While it does not actually clash with Nocturne, it's sufficiently ambiguous to need a descriptor - Nocturnes (Debussy). I see there's a redirect from this title, but I really don't think this is sufficient. Comments? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nocturnes → Nocturnes (Debussy) — "Nocturnes" could refer to a group of piano pieces by Chopin, Fauré or others. Better to disambiguate it. Jack of Oz   ... speak! ...   12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Nocturnes should probably redirect to Nocturne, with a hatnote to the dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Various articles on Chopin's nocturnes are viewed much more often than this article. Agree that Nocturnes should redirect to Nocturne. I've just created Nocturnes (disambiguation), which can be referenced from a hatnote there. Station1 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nocturnes (Debussy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060414232111/http://www.doremi.com:80/RecGilels.html to http://www.doremi.com/RecGilels.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion
Chuckstreet, thank you for a substantial welcome expansion of this article. Some things to be considered.

Formatting
We have a format how the normal Wikipedia should look, and this one is different? Extra white lines, bolded titles, why? If something is better for the eyes, please propose it for all articles, rather than making this one article look different.


 * Why? Because it's cool. I wouldn't suggest it for ALL articles, that would be silly. I'm not a conformist and I don't want everybody to be a conformist either. ;) There is no "normal" and no "should"; those are two dirty words in my book. Chuckstreet (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not? When we sing in choir, we all appear in black even if some of us hate black, - for those who look at us. Don't call that silly, please. No more right now, I have little time, and will travel today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Black is okay if you're singing a Requiem, but what if you're singing Messiaen's Celestial City, you all should be wearing white! :-) Then again, if someone's off key, you could single them out by dressing them in blue. ;-) Chuckstreet (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The peculiar extra bolding looks awful and weird, unlike any other of the other 75,427 articles on my watch list. Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, 75,427 articles you're watching! When do you have time to enjoy life? ;-) Seriously, I take it you're referring to the bold in section headers, right? Not the bold in the lede? You should know that wikicode always automatically displays level 3 and up section header text in bold, same as on the other 75,426 articles you see. Level 2, on the other hand, is not automatic, you have to manually add it. If you think bold looks ugly, awful, weird, annoying, whatever on section headers, then what do suggest we do? The purpose of bold in headers is to make them stand out and easier for a viewer to navigate. There are some other ways to do this, for instance ALLCAPS or Underlines or cute little -->Arrows or Icons, etc. Chuckstreet (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've changed things a bit. What does anyone think of how it looks now? The idea is to make it easier to read for visually disabled users like me, as well as your average user who doesn't want her/his eyes to glaze over. The sections need to be delineated better, so I've avoided level 2 headers (applies only to the main section after the lede) and used level 3 and below, which are all bold. Some of them seemed to render the same font size; maybe that's my browser, but so I made level 5 smaller. Chuckstreet (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style explicitly says "Nest headings sequentially, starting with level 2 (==), then level 3 (===) and so on. (Level 1 is the auto-generated page title.) Do not skip parts of the sequence [...]". So skipping the level 2 headings does not seem like a good idea – I think it may also mess with screen readers, though I'm not absolutely sure about that. The   tags inside some headings make the text very difficult to read, so I strongly suggest that those be removed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The paragraphs in each section need to be delineated better, so I've separated them with a single blank line. How does that look? Chuckstreet (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a look at MOS:LINEBREAKS – no extra blank lines between paragraphs. There is no reason to format this specific article differently from any other article, when it comes to basic things like paragraphing. It does not make for easier reading, rather the opposite as the unexpected formatting causes an unnecessary distraction. --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As the extra line breaks and the extra formatting in headings were a WP:BOLD change by one user, and in fact against the WP:MOS, I have reverted them. There don't seem to be any issues about skipped heading levels though, so I left the headings as they were, but maybe there is an excess of headings as discussed below. Would it actually be easier to navigate the article if it had fewer headings? --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Links to instruments
We have this right now:


 * 2 flutes, 2 oboes, cor anglais (English horn), 2 (soprano) clarinets in B♭, 3 bassoons;



For me that's a sea of blue. You say that you know what Debussy wrote, that's great, but what he wrote doesn't show in the mix of English and French. How about a clear distinction of what he wrote, and how we call it in English? It could be a table, or consistently one normal, the other in brackets, for example "cor anglais (English horn)". I could also imagine one table with all instruments in both languages, and then a column for each movement, indicating if used, which would avoid linking the same thing three times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think a table would be a bit too much; perhaps not. But the three movements definitely need to be kept separate, since each one is discussed separately, with Debussy's and others' descriptions of each one. Chuckstreet (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the sea of blue, that's a funny way to put it, but you're right all those links run together. Personally, I would just remove the wikilinks altogether, why not? They were already linked that way by a previous editor; I didn't change that style. What say we remove the links? Chuckstreet (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As for what is on the ms, I just translated everything into English, no need for the original French as well. "Cor a piston" becomes "Valve horn", for instance, and "Clarinette en si♭" becomes "Clarinet in B♭". But then we also need to include the modern common name: "French horn" (despite the obviousness that Debussy wouldn't call it that) and "Soprano clarinet" (it's the B♭ designation that makes it soprano). An exception would be "Cor anglais" which term is used in English and not translated. However, we should include a translation "English horn" in parentheses I think (even though the English don't call it that, do they? Just like the French don't call a Cor a piston "Cor Français"). Chuckstreet (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC). UPDATE: I found errors and inconsistencies in my work (musta been tired again), so I fixed the instrumentation again, it's "correct" now... as far as that goes... Chuckstreet (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we really need a link to every single instrument; seems unnecessary and cluttery to me. So I removed the wikilinks on all the instruments to avoid the great blue sea. Which turns purple when you look at it closer. At least it's not red. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Headers
I am not convinced that translations need to show in section headers for the individual nocturnes, nor do I need subheaders for them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Translations are necessary, but where to put them? Right at the beginning since it's a word that's the title, and the translation would go directly after the foreign word that's being translated. Chuckstreet (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I at least got rid of the wikilink to Sirens in the header; I think I read somewhere that section headers shouldn't have links. So I linked Sirens in the text further down. Chuckstreet (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Formatting discussion v2
To discuss formatting again, post here. See Dispute resolution noticeboard. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see this. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not interested, AnUnnamedUser. Please stick to the subject you're posting in. We're talking about placement of translations. If you have an opinion on this, post it here. Otherwise please go away. Thank you. You're cooperation is appreciated. :-) Chuckstreet (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to new section. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  22:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this dispute is not resolved on the dispute resolution noticeboard, it will be taken to WP:ANI. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page)  22:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution request was closed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If we do restart this, the following rules should be obvious: From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 23:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. All editors in the dispute are trying to help Wikipedia, not harm it.
 * No personal attacks. Do not insult or mock other users.
 * No ad hominem attacks. All arguments should be focused on content, not the users who are posting the arguments.
 * No edit wars. If a change relating to "formatting discussion v2" is made, do not revert. Discuss it on this talk page instead. Do not use back-and-forth edit summaries as an excuse for discussion in an edit war. Do not delete or modify others' talk page comments.
 * No straw men. Do not intentionally misrepresent others' arguments.
 * Don't be an eristic. Do not continue to argue for a point that you know is wrong, either because you knew it in the first place or because you were convinced. Do not discuss merely to "win" arguments instead of trying to fulfill Wikipedia's mission.
 * Please take the above to heart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

blank image?
The "Theme" SVG image from the section "Nuages" is rendering as a blank rectangle to me. When I click through, I get the image (File:Thema aus Debussy Trois Nocturnes, Nuages.svg. The proportions of teh blank space are correct. Is anyone else getting this? HLHJ (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't get it for this one, but for the following one when using upright=1.1, therefore a bit larger. I made the theme pic larger also. A question for the village pump perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)