The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 0 support, 1 oppose. Fail. Juhachi 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

[Pseudo self-nom (most of my edits are peripheral to the list itself )]

Obviously this is a notable enough list, and it's about as exhaustive as it can be now (absolute completeness is elusive for this subject, as the scholarship is ongoing). I've redone the lead, and added images, per WP:FL?. I think it's pretty usefully organized: pieces are listed both by genre and by Opus (or other) number, and the genre list has lots o' navigational headers. It's pretty stable and uncontroversial; where a piece's attribution to Beethoven is doubtful or disputed the list says so. Hopefully the redlinks won't bother anyone; I see them as invitations to future WP growth.

Opinions or suggestions are of course more than welcome. —Turangalila ^talk 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, any other resources citing his works? -Phoenix 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After your comment I padded out the "References and further reading" list a bit more, w/ works ed's & catalogs. The catalog & opus numbers themselves are of course uncontroversial; they can be double checked for accuracy in a coupld of places: Grove Online (access is available through many public libraries--mine actually lets me access it from home w/ my library card!); the lvbeethoven.com site under "External links"; and books, particularly Solomon, which alot of people have (I used the pp. from the 1st ed since that's what I have), or the printed Grove. —Turangalila _talk 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the refs are alright now. I'm looking at the objections of Circeus to see what can be done. -Phoenix 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a really good list. Just a couple minor nits to pick on a quick once over: do we really need the keys in the titles themselves (e.g. for the opus 87, Trio for two oboes and English horn in C major -- rather than just "Trio for two oboes and English horn"? There's a little bit of wikilinking inconsistency; but it's not a huge deal). Also the German keys (C-Dur, etc.) appear in the WoO list but not the opus list, which has keys in English. But once again this is easy stuff to make consistent and fix: it's a very fine list indeed. Antandrus (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed Deutsch keys. I think I got 'em all translated (I hope I kept my B's and H's straight :-) ). Did a bit more copyediting also for MoS:MUSIC - type stuff. I'd feel funny about deleting the keys from the list now that they're there; plus I have pretty good pitch so sometimes the key designation helps me remember the tune. I did move the keys out of the linked part of the titles in the "numerical" list. They're still linked in the "genre" list, which is a minor style-conflict; I'm not sure if, or in which direction, I'd want to "resolve" it. (fixed -T) —Turangalila _talk 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • Unnecessary year links (WP:MOSDATE)
    • The only year links were in the commentary; I've removed those, except for Beethoven's lifespan. It's worth noting what the MoS actually says: There's no consensus; year links are a matter of preference, not policy —Turangalila _talk
      • But the vast majority of mere year links are still unnecessary (cf. Only links that are relevant to context).
  • Links in headers
    • This can be circumvented by adding some text at the top of the section. E.g. "he wrote X of that, most of which etc." or whatever.
      • I see that problem as well. The "Chamber music" section needs some lead text. -Phoenix 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done—Turangalila _talk
  • Sections shouldn't be started with an image on the left, especially on the left of a list.
    •  Done -Phoenix 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the "AnH" list starts at 3?
    • I'll see if I can find out for sure, but I think Hess numbers are preferred to these generally —Turangalila _talk
      • I don't think it's necessary to add them. Just say why the list is incomplete, since there's no indication as to what numbers are used over the AnH ones. I suspect that the obvious answer is "those turned out not to be Beethoven's or are still dubious" Just mentioning that will be enough.
  • The works with Hess number should mention how many works exactly are omitted due to having both numbers.
    • I've clarified the note at the top of that section a bit. Is a tally really necessary?—Turangalila _talk
      • I just think it's a good thing to mention how many works have Hess numbers, even if you don't actually list them (at worst, a separate list can be made for that.)
  • Use the format for links used in "list by opus number" for the main list: it's more legible.
    •  Done—Turangalila _talk
  • Remove links in "list by opus number" that are already linked above.
    • Why make the list less useful to the reader? Per MoS:L, the one-link rule is not hard and fast.—Turangalila _talk
  • You can add WorldCat numbers for works without ISBN: Kinsky and Halm is OCLC 334667, Hess is OCLC 84567101, and Schmist-Görg and Staedhelin is OCLC 13654118
    •  Done Thanks, I didn't know that trick. —Turangalila _talk
• Circeus 15:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my inserts in Circeus's comments above are satisfying. I'm pretty sure the style inconsistencies are gone now. Like I said earlier, I don't claim it's perfectly complete, only substantively comprehensive wrt pieces of any real significance. Perhaps adding ((Dynamic list)) would help? If I misread the criteria and absolute perfection is the standard, then perhaps I should withdraw the nom for now. Let me know. (strike whining T - 4/26) —Turangalila _talk 17:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ((Dynamic list)) is a good idea. How likely is it that many new works by Beethoven will be discovered? I'll happily support if the small tweaks to the later parts can be implemented. Circeus 19:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. I can probably dig up the total entries for Hess, Biamonti, etc. and put 'em in the "History of the systems" section. It's kind of a frustrating subject. Even the Biamonti catalog, arguably the most complete and rationalized, is problematic. It lumps all six Op. 18 Quartets under one number, for instance; why I have no idea. Plus it has it's own appendix, which overlaps the other appendices. This site, which is linked in the article, has the best, most cross-referenced coverage I've found, but it ain't perfect either. Also I must confess I don't have easy access to the printed sources at the moment. I'd note that on the domain I linked above, summary tables of the different catalogs take up 8 separate large webpages. A perfectly comprehensive list is, I fear, not just beyond my capacities, but beyond the scope of a general-interest encyclopedia. A usefully-presented list that covers all the pieces of any significance, coupled with a decent bibliography, might just have to do, even if it's not worthy of FL status. (strike whining, T - 4/26) —Turangalila _talk 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Okay, there have been a few more improvements; some other editors have pitched in, and I finally made time to get to a music library. Notably: some redlinks have been repaired; I've added some more bibliographical information, esp. the Biamonti catalog and the original Hess; the "History of the various numbering systems" now notes the total entries for each catalog; and I've plugged a couple of minor holes in the "WoO" and "AnH" lists, and added Kinsky's classification headings.

All items from the Kinsky catalog (i.e. all Opus, WoO & AnH #'s) are now covered (some miniatures and spurious works are glossed in one-line "ranges", but they're mentioned). I've changed the header for the Hess-number list to "Selected...", since it only covers about a third of Hess's total entries (including the appendix). I believe most or all of the omissions are either duplicates of Kinsky entries or spurious, but I'm not 1000% certain. At some point I might add glosses for the rest of the list... —Turangalila talk 18:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]