Talk:List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Is this page missing something?

Maybe I just can't seem to find it, but where exactly is Suite in A Minor "American" Op. 98B/B190? - Anonymous, 16:59, 25 June 2006

Query

Why is Symph. #2 listed before Symph. #1?

Why did Dvorak consider the score of Symph. #1 (in c minor) to be lost forever (ref. to 9_(number)#In_music)?

What do 'opus sine' and 'opus -1' and 'opus 1', etc., mean?

Duncan.france 05:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Opus sine" means "without opus". A lot of this page still needs to be translated, it would appear. (I started to wikify it correctly a while ago but got either bored or sidetracked...)

According to the New Grove, Sym. No. 1 was finished 24 March 1865, but never published. Symphony No. 2 was published as Opus 4, and was finished on 9 October 1865. Symphony No. 1 was first performed in 1936 -- maybe he lost it but someone else found it after his death? I don't know the answer to that one. Hope this helps! Antandrus 05:26, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.

I'm still not clear on what "without opus" means!

I know what you mean, it is terribly difficult to remain focussed with Wikipedia work...

Based on finish date then, Symph. #1 should be listed before #2, with perhaps a note to the effect that it was not published.

Hopefully someone will explain about how he lost #1 and who found it, and when.. Duncan.france 09:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first symphony was written before the second, and should be listed earlier. Without opus means that a work never was given an opus number during the composers life by himself or a publisher. Dvořák send in the score of his first symphony to a composing contest. He didn't win a price, and the board didn't bother to send the score back, or the return address was lost. Dvořák never saw it back, after his death it was found in an antique shop. Basboy 23:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were a two exact duplicates in this list (both consecutive) which I removed. There is also a duplicate of "Slovanske tance 2. rada"; I cannot correct this because of two conflicting years, 1887 and 1887. --Zippanova 02:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Are both for orchestra? Dvořák first wrote a piano four-hands version, which he later orchestrated. Both have different B-numbers. Basboy 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year?

What exactly do the years in the "year" column represent? First performance? Completion? Written? Published? Of course, it would be nice to have all those as separate columns, but if there's only one, we better state what it is. QwertyUSA 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

This article should be named something like List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser Number. This page should have his works listed by category, like the Beethoven works or Mozart works pages. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The violin concerto is listed in a strange way. Sure there are two versions of it, but the piece should only take one line. I had a moment when I thought: are there TWO concertos by Dvorak? Well, no, two versions of one. Please do make this clear in the table: one line. Thanks in advance. 92.107.0.66 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keys

Would it be appropriate to include information about keys? If so, how should this be done: by extending the titles or by inserting yet another column? Ishboyfay (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Group out lost works

This is a list of compositions by Dvořák, not a list of Burghauser's catalogue. Grouping out the lost works makes it much more readable, as any potential reader is usually only interested in the surviving works. intforce (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – lost works are also works by the composer. This is not a list of "extant works by Antonín Dvořák" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. I am not proposing deleting the lost works from the table, but merely grouping them into a new section. intforce (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument ("more readable") is completely bogus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my opinion. You are free to refute my argument, but not by simply calling it "bogus". intforce (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any potential reader who wants the whole list WOULD care about the lost works. If they don't care they would probably care about the rare stuff getting in the way too. So no. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Let's say I'm searching for suitable works for voice and piano to perform. Then obviously I do care about lesser known compositions, but certainly not about material that doesn't actually exist. intforce (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to do that, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Your argument IS bogus. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of calling my arguments "bogus", I advise you to back up your claim that that is "not what Wikipedia is for" with evidence. I am calling for you and User:Francis Schonken to remain WP:CIVIL. intforce (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE is a good start. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. Using Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference to find existing works by a composer is exactly what it is for. Anyway, I'll stop this argument, since we obviously disagree fundamentally what this list should be about, and I'm tired of arguing against a wall. intforce (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Column ordering

On mobile devices, the current column ordering significantly impacts accessibility. This is what is looks like now: [1]. It is borderline unreadable. To see what actually matters, i.e. the (English) title of the work, you have to scroll to the right, and return to the left if you want to see the catalogue numbers. This is what it should look like: [2]. May I remind everyone that mobile traffic constitutes 60% of the English Wikipedia's total traffic, and accessibility issues have to be taken into account. intforce (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two links shows anything on my screen; don't worry, looked at the table on my mobile device.
The argument seems pointless: on any small screen one would have to move left to right to read an entire row. This is about what one user might prefer to read first, or in the proximity of the data in another column, while another user might like to read something else first, and in the proximity of some other data. No way to satisfy all. For most small-screen-users the main message would be: the "by genre" variant of the list might work better on your screen, anyhow.
For presentation of the columns in a table:
- MOS:STYLERET indicates to keep the style which was established first, unless there's sufficient consensus on the talk page to change style.
- I might agree to some column changes, not to others, but without knowing what would work best for most users depending on which screens they're using, I'd suggest to keep the current style until a sufficiently broad consensus establishes.
Something that would make at least one column a bit less wide is the "for " repeated in every cell of the "Scoring" column. That "for " can be dropped as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what the user prefers to read. This is about information precedence that decides ordering. Obviously, for readers of the English Wikipedia, the Czech name is less relevant than the English title, and with already limited space, the English title should be to the left. No way to satisfy all. That is true. I'm talking about the majority of users.

I'm glad you mentioned the "by genre" variant. Since we have that already, it makes little sense for this list to have "Genre" as the first column. Instead, the catalogue number should be the first column, to emphasize that the list is sortable. Indeed, you can't sort by genre, as genre has no innate order - you can only group by genre. I'm curious what other editors think about this. intforce (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disagree about your intuitions of "what should be". Formulate a clear proposal, and find consensus for it. Otherwise: BRD, that is, whatever change you implement without considering what others might think is open for reversion if someone doubts it would be an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Was thinking about the "Genre" column: I'm not sure on what it is based. E.g., "Piano" is not, as such, a "genre". So from what source is that information derived? If not derived from a reliable source, but a Wikipedia editor's assessment, I suppose it might be a good idea to drop the entire column. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There is quite a lot of redundancy between "Genre" and "Scoring", e.g. genre "Orchestral" and scoring "for orchestra". Also, the column serves no purpose since List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by genre exists. intforce (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done since there are no objections. No consensus for the other proposals yet. intforce (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Move column "English title" in front of "Czech title". By WP:ENGLISH, readers are much more likely to refer to the English title. Also, only the English titles are linked to the respective articles. intforce (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one, for me: no. For me, first original, then translation, makes more sense. Compare e.g. List of symphonies with names, which also follows this convention. Not that the same convention needs to be followed in all articles, but for me original-followed-by-translation makes mostly more sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the Czech title column isn't quite clear to me, especially since the English titles are literal translations (e.g. "String Quartet" instead of "Smyčcový kvartet"). As far as I can see, no other list of compositions by any other composer includes a column with the original titles, for example Köchel catalogue, Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, List of compositions by Franz Schubert, List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, List of compositions by Joseph Haydn, List of compositions by Franz Liszt. Indeed, we could even get rid of the column altogether. The table is already bloated, and the Czech title column adds little value to the reader. intforce (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: drop the "for " starting every entry in the "Scoring" column (as proposed above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. intforce (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we could abbreviate the entries, similar to here and here, e.g. "2vn va vc". intforce (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Given that it's been a year and we're at 3-0, I will go ahead and do this. --Xarm Endris (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]