Talk:New Schubert Edition

Italics

User:Francis Schonken I'm glad you're looking over the italics. I was trying to follow the guideline, but that was getting circular and involved fixing up Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)#Definitions_.E2.80.93_italics as some of the examples were either inconsistent in the guideline or in the articles / both. I don't understand [1] "Name of a franchise is not Italicised" but I'm happy if you revert all my edits if incorrect. I'm more confident about the edits I did to the guideline and articles linked from it, but feel free to check. Regards Widefox; talk 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Name of a franchise is not Italicised" – This is the rule (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Series titles): "Descriptive titles for media franchises [...] should not be placed in italics or quotation marks [...] (Tolkien's Middle-earth writings, the Marvel and DC universes in comics, Sherlock Holmes mysteries)". Note that the actual title of the series as declared by the publisher is Franz Schubert: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke (italicised, mentioned near the end of the intro of the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken What makes you consider this a media franchise? Isn't it a catalogue or collection like the Complete Works of Shakespeare? Widefox; talk 08:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure whether the Shakespeare article (which rather seems to be a list of complete editions by various publishers, with many different declared series names) is correctly titled, and even less whether such Wikipedia article title should be italicised. Anyway, doesn't seem suitable for comparison with Bärenreiter's New Schubert Edition. A more suitable comparison may be made with Breitkopf's Franz Schubert's Works, or with Bärenreiter's New Bach Edition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Another comparison may be made to List of Cambridge Companions to Music (not: List of Cambridge Companions to Music). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Isn't it a catalogue ... ?" – strictly speaking not, although an edition of the Deutsch catalogue is included in the series (NSE VIII/4), and although it is also possible to list all published compositions by Schubert according to their place in the New Schubert Edition (see 5th column in this table).

Re. "Isn't it a ... collection ...?" – yes, it is a collection: as far as I can see it is a collection that falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Series titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is based on:

• Examples of articles that I've not edited (majorly, or changed italics): e.g. Shakespeare's sonnets - a collection
  • at the crux - is there any difference between a music collection, and a literary collection? (as the literary ones seem clearcut italic), but they're all book publications so I'd default to those literary examples (which, happily, have a less complicated italic guide)
• but also follow MOS:ITALICTITLE "Books, multi-volume works (e.g. encyclopedias), and booklets"
• they aren't an exception in MOS:QUOTETITLE#Neither
• they aren't (media) "franchise" names (as per your edit summary)
• They're not "generic name for a generic composition type" WP:NCM
• There's internally inconsistent italics in use: e.g. New Schubert Edition: Neue Schubert-Ausgabe (correct by either count: either non-English should be italic, or alternatively, just following the article should be italic) vs Neue Gesamt-Ausgabe (incorrect, should be bold and italic) and NGA (incorrect no italic, inconsistent with style with Neue Gesamt-Ausgabe)
• a book series? New Schubert Edition isn't a book series, is it? A book series is more like a line (or brand), but yes I take your point that book series shouldn't be italic (IMHO), and that should be covered by it not being a published title of a book
• Aren't all those examples (major edited/created) by you? ie they're not independent examples for this discussion, whereas all my examples are and follow a simple interpretation of guideline? Widefox; talk 10:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "Aren't all those examples (major edited/created) by you?" – Doesn't seem unlikely that the ones I know about are on my watchlist because I edited them. I tried to get a grasp on this before editing, of course.

Re. "New Schubert Edition isn't a book series, is it? A book series is more like a line (or brand)" – on the contrary, New Schubert Edition is a book series, or line, or brand, within Bärenreiter's publications.

Re. "... multi-volume works (e.g. encyclopedias) ..." – New Schubert Edition is not a (single) multi-volume work like an encyclopedia: it is a collection of some thousand separate works, with a multitude of separate introductions, by various authors, critical commentaries, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "is there any difference between a music collection, and a literary collection?" – I have less experience with the literary collections (although I wrote most of WP:NCB#Series as I did write most of WP:NCM#Definitions – italics) – but as said above, the current italicisation schemes for Shakespeare series seem suboptimal to say the least (they're certainly not "clearcut" as you seem to contend): I wouldn't use them as example either way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

New Schubert Edition "83 volumes, 8 series, the edition is scheduled for completion in 2027" [2]. (The article is off by a decade!)

It's clear cut not a franchise (per initial edit summary)

I agree the article Complete Works of Shakespeare is more of a WP:DABCONCEPT or WP:SIA even, not a solid example per se but the titles in it are. Shakespeare's Sonnets the same.

MOS:TITLE#Series titles is only about "Descriptive titles" not "Actual titles of a series declared by the author or publisher". This is clearcut an actual title by the publisher - the proper noun. List of Cambridge Companions to Music is clearly a line (hence a list article of different topics), rather than a multi volume title. I modify my opinion above - there's lots of book series which are italic e.g. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology e.g. all of Category:Monographic series. Therefore, a book series by itself doesn't mean it should not be italic (unless all those examples are wrong).

They aren't published as individual books (and reminds me of Encyclopædia Britannica publishing). The crux being the name, it's a single published proper noun coming from the publisher. It appears more multi-volume single "edition" to me, "The New Schubert Edition (Neue Schubert-Ausgabe) is a scholarly-critical edition comprising all the works of Franz Schubert (1797-1828). Its eighty-four volumes are divided by category into eight series," [3] . It's Shakespeare's Sonnet 130 but Shakespeare's Sonnets#Editions Widefox; talk 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As to the fine points of book series vs edited collection etc, the crux is the actual name, a proper name.

The other inconsistencies? Widefox; talk 12:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop linking to Shakespeare's Sonnets as if that would be an actual Wikipedia article title (it is a redirect). As said, to which you admitted, the situation is problematic for that article (FYI: the article title is capitalised differently from the first occurrence of that article title in the article). It should be either Shakespeare's sonnets (descriptive title, "sonnets" not capitalised) or Shakespeare's Sonnets only when referring to a grouped edition with the poems in a particular order. Further, the relevance is nil for the New Schubert Edition article: Shakespeare's sonnets are only a subdivision of the poet's oeuvre, a group of works that easily fits in a single book: not a collection of some thousand works, belonging to a wide variety of genres, that could not be printed in a single book even if one wanted to. A printed edition of all of Schubert's compositions always comprises multiple volumes, and is thus a "series" in the sense of MOS:TITLE#Series titles. PS: for comparison – the article title Schubert's last sonatas is not italicised (descriptive title), so if the article title is Shakespeare's sonnets, as it is currently (i.e. with "sonnets' not capitalised), it should not be italicised.

Again, as said, the publisher's designated title for the series is Franz Schubert: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke (that is how it appears in print in the actual volumes): New Schubert Edition is a short formulation, also used as a brand name by the publisher on their English-language webpages, but not in the printed volumes (which are in German). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "It's clear cut not a franchise":

• New Schubert Edition fits in what is described at Media franchise#Non-fiction, as much as Wikipedia (despite falling under "...e.g. encyclopedias..." as quoted from MOS:ITALICTITLE above, our article title of that article is not italicised), or as much as Aubrey–Maturin series (also not italicised) falls under the "fiction" type of franchise.
• The New Schubert Edition even has derivative products: the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe website is not run by Bärenreiter but by the International Schubert Association ([4]), so that website is a derivative product of the franchise owned by Bärenreiter (or the other way around, Bärenreiter's printed volumes as derivative products of the franchise owned by the International Schubert Association).

So I'd say "It's clear cut a franchise" --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

We both agree there's more clear examples than at Shakespeare's sonnets (sure the title is "sonnets", but lede is currently "Sonnets", not that it matters as there's dozens of clear examples above) - it appears a mix, hence me trying to direct attention to the titles in Shakespeare's sonnets#Editions

• There's dozens of italic book series. (Discussing the least clear example doesn't enlighten.) That's undisputed, right? The point being if it's the actual name, then it is italic per MOS, agreed? That's clear.
  • What's not clear, is this may all be a translation issue for the title?
• Pull the other one, it's nothing like a media franchise! Where's the derivative works and licencing deals? It appears to be a project:
  • with a publisher of the "Critical reports"[5]
  • and stated publisher of the volumes![6]
• The website isn't a franchise holder, it's just a project website (with links to items to be purchased from both publishers of separate parts). I can't see any derivative works or franchise. So no, I don't buy that at all, that's preposterous. Widefox; talk 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Bärenreiter and the International Schubert Association are separate organisations. Surely there must be contracts between these organisations when they embark on something of the scale of the New Schubert Edition. Similar for Bach Archive and Bärenreiter: separate organisations, but surely they need a contract when embarking on NBArev (or before that the New Bach Edition). These composer-oriented organisations develop activities where Bärenreiter has nothing to say (e.g. the Bachfest organised by the Bach Archive). Much of your comments appears based on speculation ("...just a project website..." – says who? – and even if it would be a project website that is not a reply to the question whose project or website it is). If the critical reports are not published by Bärenreiter and the scores are not published by the International Schubert Association, and both types of publications appear under the same "New Schubert Edition" brand, then sure this is a franchise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source for a derivative work, or media franchise? (see derivative work, franchise) If not, it's being kind to say it's just WP:OR . Did I miss the New Bach Edition dolls in the shops? ;) Widefox; talk 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Example: Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, second paragraph: "The Neue Bach-Ausgabe published Bach's Magnificat (both BWV 243a and BWV 243) in 1955, edited by Alfred Dürr. This Urtext score was reused in several ensuing publications by Bärenreiter, among which several with an English translation" (see article for references) – the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (New Bach Edition) is exclusively in German, thus a score based on it but with (additional) English lyrics or otherwise in English is a derived product. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Some relevant questions

Wondering whether some more opinions should be sought, for instance via RfC, in which case, for instance, a set of questions such as this one could be asked:

1. Catalogues indicated by a name that is not an actual book title:
   1. Hoboken catalogue or Hoboken catalogue?
   2. Deutsch catalogue or Deutsch catalogue (see, for instance, lead paragraph of Schubert Thematic Catalogue)?
2. Articles about a set of works belonging to the same genre, by a single author or composer:
   1. Shakespeare's sonnets or Shakespeare's sonnets?
   2. Bach's first cantata cycle or Bach's first cantata cycle?
3. Articles about a particular collected edition of a composer or author:
   1. Neue Mozart-Ausgabe or Neue Mozart-Ausgabe?
   2. Complete Works of Voltaire or Complete Works of Voltaire?
4. Abbreviations of German expressions:
   1. NSA or NSA?
   2. BWV or BWV?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken. Yes, clearly more opinions are needed. What's not explained is why my corrections for consistency (which are wholly unchallenged replies so far) remain left out, doesn't seem there's much I can really add. I've enjoyed fixing up some issues with the music titling guideline, seems nothing will be accepted here despite no argument against the particular individual fixes (I leave for others). Widefox; talk 20:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "why my corrections for consistency (...) remain left out" – not sure what you're talking about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

(see "inconsistent" above). I'm off. Widefox; talk 22:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph isn't too clear. Anyway I'd say that "German: NSA" is inconsistent – these abbreviations are never italicised, whatever language they're from. E.g., we don't italicise BWV because it would be an acronym of a German expression, it's always BWV without italics. Further: beware of too much boldface in an intro, it makes the text more difficult to parse for the reader: only the most significant synonyms and alternative names should appear in boldface (less frequently used synonyms should not). It is my impression that what you are proposing is an exaggeration in that sense, as the intro currently already has more than enough (maybe even already too much) boldface, so I'd prefer a harmonisation towards less boldface. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Which again, is not correct - non-English words and acronyms are italic per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Latin abbreviations In normal usage, abbreviations of Latin words and phrases should be italicised... (and to confirm, if the word is italic then the acronym is too per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Abbreviation_of_long_titles). As for whether non-English proper nouns are italic or not is relevant, but having mixed italic and not is inconsistent (Neue Schubert-Ausgabe NSA correct, Neue Gesamt-Ausgabe NGA inconsistent and not correct). This undone edit [7] has the fix for this. So for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, if BWV is in use in English, it shouldn't be italic. (As to if it should be italic as a book, I have no opinion.) Widefox; talk 07:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, you refer to guidance about abbreviations of Latin expressions (part of these abbreviations are italicised, others are not). The guideline says nothing about abbreviations of German expressions. So don't pretend absence of guidance regarding abbreviations of German expressions is some sort of guidance regarding these expressions? Similar for the "long titles" guidance: the first rule is that the abbreviation needs to be source-attested – please find an English-language source that italicises abbreviations of German expressions (all the examples in that guidance are English-language).

You didn't reply to my concerns regarding the excessive use of boldface.

There is inconsistency, but I reject your proposal to fix it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, added a fourth topic about this to my proposed list of questions above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please also explain whether it would be D or D in your opinion (it refers to a publication that was originally in English, but current Deutsch numbers are based on the latest version of the catalogue in German)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Similar, would it be K. or K.? Anh. or Anh.? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• After another somewhat related question arose I booted an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

"Not the kind of sources that can be footnotes in this article" is of course nonsense – any of the listed sources (and external links, for that matter) can be used for verification of the article's content, and can thus be employed in a footnote format.

The main problem of the article is not "lack" of sources, but that these aren't used for verification of the content, and that, as it happens, they are all primary sources w.r.t. the article topic (primary sources can be used, but not exclusively: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources,... " as the WP:PRIMARY policy has it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, there are no sources in the article that can be used as footnotes, not counting the two external links, which IMHO is not enough to justify the use of {{No footnotes}} over {{unsourced}}. Debresser (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you don't agree with the WP:NOR policy, but that leaves me totally unimpressed with your reasoning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you referring to WP:NOR? I argued that the article should be tagged as unsourced, rather than tagging it as having sources but no footnotes. I don't follow your logic here. Debresser (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

At the same time I have reverted my edit, since I see that you now added two sources which are not footnotes. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY is part of WP:NOR, I, apparently erroneously, assumed you knew that.

The tags have, after partial update of the article, been updated too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The sneer is not appreciated. You should really work on your WP:CIVIL issues. In any case, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR are related, but can exist as separate tags on an article. Debresser (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)