Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert

	This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Lists 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.

The numbering system designated "C" in this article calls D567 No. 7 and D568 No. 8 while leaving D571 unnumbered. The linked Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, call D568 No. 7 and D571 No. 8. Why the discrepancy?

Is there any source that indicates a particular combination of (parts & completions of) D570/571/604 as sonata No. 8? The only version I have (order, completions and performance of D570-571 by Alwin Bär) gives it no number. The booklet says that the Andante D604 is thrown in often too (in this order: D571 - D604 - D570 scherzo - D570 finale).

Note that currently the Wikipedia article on this "compilation" sonata (

Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, D. 571 (Schubert)) which keeps to the D571 - D604 - D570 scherzo - D570 finale succession) does not mention any "number" for this sonata. So, based on what sources would this be No. 8? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I support that the article keeps the info on the different numbering systems for the sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The table below does not include some shorter pieces, such as German dances, minuets, marches and the like." Why? Was there a decision to exclude them for some reason? I mean, we have a page exclusively for Schubert's solo piano music, so. . . - Gus ^{(T, C)} 2010-10-27 21:52Z

• Yep, sorry, the table originated as something I had on my computer in Excel before my involvement in Wikipedia. It originated in an attempt to organise the collection of recordings and scores I had (which was messy because of the different names & numbers given to many of these compositions). Then I had it auto-transformed to HTML, cleaned it up and introduced it in the general list of compositions of Schubert (which had very little info on the piano compositions at the time); then someone moved it to this separate page and also someone transformed it to wikitable.

I know the table is a drag, but it contains info as yet not combined in the bulletted list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: does the bulleted list contain 4(or more)-hands compositions? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main goal in editing this article was to provide a complete list of all the works organized by their genre (the list was partial before my edit). In this case, the idea was to follow the divisions set forth by the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, Series VII: Piano Sonatas (Klaviersonaten), Miscellaneous Works (Klavierstücke), Dances (Tänze)

As stated earlier, I do not support the need for the table because the only information presently contained there which is not included is that of the different numbering for the sonatas. This is a fascinating subject in itself but I feel it would perhaps be better suited to an article discussing the historical information provided with regard to this matter, and not in an article that serves merely as a list of compositions. In addition, much of the information of the table is different in format to that of the bullet list, which causes for discrepancies of the same information within the same article (title, use of italics, numbering of movements (1 vs I, etc., capitalization of movement titles, numbering of Deustch numbers, etc). In terms of Deutsch number formatting, for example, I have seen the following ways: Ex. D 29, D.29, D29, D029 While there seems to be no consensus regarding this topic, the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe edition follows "D 29", so the list was made with this format in mind. In addition, the table contains a very large number of works, it is almost a list in itself, not so much a quick reference to the larger works, as it was initially described. It is by no means my intention to get in an argument with Mr. Schonken or Mr. Bednarek; hopefully we can reach an agreement as to how we can come about to better organize and share our contributions with regard to this vast and wonderful piano literature.

By the way, the bullet list contains only solo piano compositions, as this is the title of the article. But given the large number of piano duet works, it would not be a bad idea to create an article listing those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solti79 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Solti79:, thank you for coming here to discuss this matter. I don't care either way, but I think that a major difference of opinion about the content of this list ought to be discussed, rather than treating it to a number of reverts. @Francis Schonken:, what's your rationale? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tx for your input:

Re. formatting: I'd like uniformity too: traditionally: "D. 29" would be the way to indicate a Deutsch number (e.g.

Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157 (Schubert)

). Also, major/minor/flat/sharp not capitalised when indicating a key. Re. (for instance) Minuet, Minuet, "Minuet", MENUETTO I don't know. My first preference would be to use the format as it is in the scores (MENUETTO most often I suppose).

FWIW, there's Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) too which isn't very well followed currently for Schubert's piano music and/or would be hard to follow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Table and/or List(s): I'd prefer to have all the info in one sortable table. As long as the table is not complete in that sense I suppose it best to keep the two systems in tandem. Would there be any disadvantage to complete the table and then remove redundant lists?

Re. sonata numbering info: I think the overview can't very well do without that, whether or not it is treated in a dedicated article (and/or in the articles on the individual sonatas). For instance, free scores (often based on older publications for copyright reasons) often carry older numbers, or no D. number, the table makes it easy to identify a sonata without ambiguity.

Re. "solo": solo can mean without accompaniment of other instruments besides piano. A four-hands piano piece is composition for piano "solo". Or is there no ambiguity in this respect? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember a discussion on how the WikiProject Classical music would like to use Deutsch numbers uniformly; I think the result was to prefer "D xxx" (no full stop, 1 space), but not to be fanatical about it as there is no really firm standard. It is of course necessary to follow the same standard within one article. Any sorting problems in tables can be overcome by using appropriate templates. On the other hand, major/minor are definitely to be spelled in lower case. Terms like "minuet" should be spelled as in an authoritative source, except that all-caps must not be used.

Table/list: I can see no reason not to present both forms in this article; List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven shows a list by genre and a list by number, albeit both as lists. A table has the advantage of being sortable (which might require considerable extra work if meaningful results are expected – should "Key" be sorted alphabetical or by accidentals?) but the disadvantage of occupying much horizontal screen space.

PS: The list suffers currently badly from using capitals in section headers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. All of the information regarding the Piano Sonatas can be extremely confusing. I am talking about which are or are not Sonatas (D 459, 459 A), what movements belong to what sonatas (D 279, 566, 571, 613, 625) and as pointed out, what numbering system, if any, should be used. In the case of the list, I chose to write down the numbers in parenthesis, indicating that these are not official. With this regard, the only works which are omitted are D 154, as it really is an early draft of D 157, and D 769 A, which is a very small fragment of less than one page. In turn, that gives us 21 sonatas. In my previous edit, I took the idea from the table which lists all movements supposedly contained within the sonatas, which I think illustrates the manner more clearly. Nonetheless, there is no consensus about this. Even from the point of view of Dr. Walburga Litschauer´s edition of the sonatas for the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, the loose movements are not included, although this approach is a bit too conservative in my opinion.

Having read the arguments in favor of the table, I am sorry but I am still not sure about the table vs the list or having both. If the list is complete, what is the disadvantage of removing the table, which is redundant? In that regard, completing the table will require a lot of work, while the list is already complete and has all essential information. Providing different numbering systems for only 21 of the many works does not seem to justify, in my humble opinion, a table that duplicates all other existing information. Listing the items by genre is also a plus in my opinion in the sense that it allows for an easier comparison of all items under that category. I also agree that the table has the advantage of being sortable, but it does occupy a lot of horizontal space in a list that is already comprised of many works. If we were to include all works here, it would end up being very long. And if not, what would be the criteria for including an item in the table? Only major works? Would these be initially sorted by ascending Deutsch numbers? Or could we just devote the table to the area of Piano Sonatas, finding a way to use its sortability as a plus in explaining the numbering systems and the contents for each work in each of the three numbering systems?

Regarding formatting, I support the idea of having uniformity not only within this article, but in as many wikipedia articles about Schubert as possible. In terms of capitalization of "Major", "Minor", "Sharp" and "Flat", I admit this was a decision I took with the knowledge that it might be controversial. I agree that these could work just as well if they were not capitalized, and I will change them - this can be done very quickly. With regard to the Deutsch number formatting, I would ask for a little leniency and understanding. As mentioned earlier, while the traditional way of listing a number was D. XX, the format used by the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe is D XX . Personally, I am more used to the traditional approach, but if we are to attempt to reach a consensus, I believe we should abide by the format set forth by the Schubert authorities in Tübingen. I also support not using all caps in movement titles.

I agree with the fact that there might be some controversy regarding the terms "solo piano" and "piano solo". However, if we are to include all of the contents from Series VII from the NSA, for piano two hands and piano four hands, I could also do this very quickly. However, I have these arranged also in a bullet list format, not a table. Solti79 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what exactly are the three numbering systems for the Sonatas? "A" is described but not "B" or "C". What are the sources for these numbering systems and what is their relevance? I would argue that neither the Deutsch Catalogue or the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe assign a numbering system to the Sonatas, precisely because of the fact that there is not an agreement with regard to this subject matter. I would imagine that if these two sources, which are the most reliable in terms of cataloging Schubert´s ouevre, specifically avoid assigning a numbering system, we should follow suit. In any case, I have never found the numbering of the sonatas to be of any use while making association or reference to them. People and books always seem to reference them through their key, Deutsch number or Opus number. As such, I would contend that any information with regards to their supposed numbering order is of the least importance to anybody that is researching information on them. Solti79 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, but I see this first paragraph of my answer echoes the question added in the last paragraph by Solti above) Question: where do the numbering systems for the piano sonatas originate? I'm only sure for the A system, that's the 1888 first "complete sonatas" Breitkopf and Härtel edition, reprinted by Dover in the late 20th century. The B system I'm not sure but conforms to what I found used often on scores on the internet. The C system is what is used most often on CD recordings afaik. There is at least still a D system that goes to 23 (for D 960), I have one such recording. So anyhow, whichever numbering is used we need references where it comes from. Afaik Deutch/NSA don't give numbers. Wherever they come from we would best mention external sources that confirm them. See for example also above #Numbering regarding D 568/570/571/604.

Why is D 29 in List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Miscellaneous Piano Works and D 604 in List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Sonata Movements? Similar D 349 vs D 505, D 915 vs D 346, etc.? If there is no source that identifies in each pair one as being a sonata movement, and the other as definitely not a sonata movement, it is difficult to split up in such a way introducing a point of view (not induced from external sources) of which is the one and which is the other. That would at least be an advantage of having all in a single table: no guesses about the nature of these pieces needed. For instance also D 459 / 459 A: five piano pieces? A sonata with two movements? A sonata with 5 movements? Two incomplete sonatas? I think I handled it better to incorporate the different views in the table, than in the bulleted list.

Re. uniformity: I'm not too happy with the current article titles (e.g.

Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, D. 571 (Schubert)

which has the period after the D, treats two more D numbers than named in the page title, etc...), nor with the names in the sonata navbox...

{{schubert piano sonatas}}

...which is an eyesore from the point of view of recognizability.

I'm not too happy with the content of the individual articles on piano works either, e.g.

Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 769a (Schubert) should not have a separate article if there's so little to say about it; Similar for Valses Sentimentales and Valses Nobles (Schubert)

; "Daniel Coren summarised the nature of the recapitulation..." (which is found in quite a few of these articles) is an "empty" statement, etc.

One suggestion might be not to blind ourselves with this "overview" article, let it rest a bit, work on the articles on the individual piano works, find the satisfactory references for the numbering systems, make a more satisfactory navbox and update article titles accordingly... And after that revisit this page on improvement of list and/or table (and whether or not to discard one or the other).

Anyway, something to keep in mind too is that NSA is without doubt the first source for current state of affairs, but no single article should depend on a single source exclusively. Encyclopedia articles can give more background on history, outdated views (& why they are considered outdated nowadays), analyses by other reputable sources, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. capitalisation of movement names (as opposed to tempo indicators) I'm thinking about smallcaps:

unfinished

Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157

— the first three movements are extant:

1. Allegro ma non troppo
2. Andante
3. Menuetto, Allegro vivace - Trio

Alternatively,

unfinished

Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157

— the first three movements are extant:

1. Allegro ma non troppo
2. Andante
3. Menuetto, Allegro vivace - Trio

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipdia's

WP:ALLCAPS). I suggest to stick to the format used widely elsewhere which avoids caps as well as italics. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Finally, I would like to discuss how decisions are going to be taken if we are unable to be in 100% agreement. I propose that if there are three of us, if two out of the three are in agreement we then make the proposed changes. Solti79 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1: No. The table has advantages too. It is a drag to edit. It takes more space. That are the disadvantages. It is sortable. It doesn't induce a single POV. That are the most speaking advantages.

Re. 2: Yes, that introduction would be most welcome.

Re. 3: Don't know, it is worth a try whether that can clarify.

Question: Does Wiener Urtext edition number the sonatas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D 347 is ranged under "sonatas / sonatinas" according to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/werke_einzelansicht_en.php?werke_id=281&herkunft=allewerke - so putting it in List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Miscellaneous Piano Works instead of in List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Sonata Movements is such a POV that can not be handled adequately in separate lists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, Minuets are dances so D 600 is ranged under "dances" at http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/werke_einzelansicht_en.php?werke_id=344&herkunft=allewerke so putting dances in a separate list at List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Piano Dances without including the dances that are also "possible" sonata movements at List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Sonata Movements remains a POV not shared by all sources, which can be avoided by combining in a single sortable table. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of any loose piece to a certain sonata remains the personal choice of an editor or performer and obviously will not be shared by all sources. If this was official, it would appear in the Deutsch catalogue and NSA edition as such. As mentioned above, the NSA edition included all of the loose pieces described above in the "Piano Pieces" volumes, not the "Sonatas" volumes (so the Schubert Autograph website has made an error, it seems). As I said, this is a very conservative approach that I don't necessarily agree with, but that it is not important. The point I was trying to make is that out of all of these loose so-called "Sonata" movements, some have been associated to specific unfinished works, while others have not (like D 347). This would obviously have to be explained in the introduction to that category. Without a doubt, the least commonly associated work is D 600/610 (albeit, the only "Dance" and not "Sonata Movement" to be included in this category). This was not suggested by myself, but by Reinhard van Hoorickx, a well known Schubert scholar who completed many of his unfinished works (a number of his song completions were recorded in the Hyperion set). This reference appears in one of the articles listed in the Electronic Resources.

I do have to say I am offended by Mr. Schonken's assertions that the information I provide is reduced to "POV"s. I have spent many months and a very large number of hours researching Schubert's output and I have gone meticulously over the bulleted list before publishing my findings here. There was a lot of thought that went into the specifics of the bulleted list, the formats used, the information contained in each entry, etc. This is not something I came up with last week and decided to post it just for fun. This research is very important to me and I find it appalling that my work and contributions are not being valued and treated with respect. This discussion is getting nowhere. I have been trying to find a common ground by conceding to first incorporate the specific movements of all large scale works into the list. Then I removed the capitalization of terms as suggested. I am willing to add the numbering from the 1888 edition to the list. And I am doing it because these are great ideas that I believe will improve the article. In exchange, Mr. Schonken has refused to accept any of the suggestions made, including not publishing material that has no real source (so called systems "B" and "C") and is incomplete in nature (basically all of the Dances are missing in his table), not changing the formatting of the Deutsch numbers, and not removing the all around capitalization of movements. In fact, three out of the four people editing this list as of late have suggested making this change (user "JackofOz" actually went ahead and did it, and this was immediately reversed by Mr. Schonken). Now he has decided to add more information to the table, links to scores, which have not been discussed in this page, and which in my opinion, clutter the table even more than it already is. So in other words, the feeling I am getting is that if he adds or removes something it is ok, but if somebody else does it, it is not. As such, I am not even sure if it is worth continuing this discussion. If this is going to be the Francis Schonken page of Schubert's piano works, then we might as well not carry on. And one final point: the actual quote used by Mr. Schonken was "I know the table is a drag, but it contains info as yet not combined in the bulletted list". So it would be nice to acknowledge that this statement was actually made. But it seems it would be impossible to do so because the consequence of this is that if the bulletted list contained the info from the table, as I suggest it does, the table would no longer be necessary...Solti79 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use POV in a technical sense:

• D 347 is not a sonata, that is NSA's point of view (POV)
• D 347 is classified with the sonatas, that is OWA's point of view (POV)
• Regarding D 347 Wikipedia should not make a choice between NSA's POV and OWA's POV, that is Wikipedia's point of view, also known as the neutral point of view (
  WP:NPOV
  )

etc.

Above I asked "Would there be any disadvantage to complete the table and then remove redundant lists?" I'd like to reconsider that option.

Again, I'd like not to put too much energy in the discussion table and/or list *yet*. Let's consider both options for somewhat more time, see what references we can find etc. (I started adding references).

If someone wants that the decision is made now, without delay, immediately, (which I don't think a good thing, but OK that is an option, to not delay the decision), then I choose for the table.

Re. "...how decisions are going to be taken if we are unable to be in 100% agreement":

WP:CONSENSUS, no other way. There's no consensus either way, yet. So I'd really ask to consider the table, let the idea grow on you, etc. I'll do the same for the list. For instance, with adequate introduction texts (when they are written as mentioned above, and they can be appreciated in a format suitable for the list page) I might be convinced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• the 1888 edition numbering. The Dover publication is still widely spread, and for instance also IMSLP seems to reproduce it for some of the sonatas (I mean the score PDFs they publish are copies of that edition, and give the numbers according to this system).
• What was termed "C" in the table, and what I suppose to be the same numbers as used in List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Piano Sonatas.

This is the list I found at http://www.classicalarchives.com/composer/3308.html :

Piano Sonata in E-, D.769a (formerly D.944; fragment)

Piano Sonata in Eb, D.568, Op.posth.122

Piano Sonata No.1 in E, D.157

Piano Sonata No.2 in C, D.279 ('Unfinished')

Piano Sonata No.3 in E, D.459

Piano Sonata No.4 in A-, D.537, Op.posth.164

Piano Sonata No.5 in Ab, D.557

Piano Sonata No.6 in E-, D.566

Piano Sonata No.7 in Db, D. 567

Piano Sonata No.8 in F#-, D.571 (fragment; including various other mvmts.)

Piano Sonata No.9 in B, D.575, Op.posth.147

Piano Sonata No.10 in C, D.613 (fragment)

Piano Sonata No.11 in F-, D.625

Piano Sonata No.12 in C#-, D.655 (fragment)

Piano Sonata No.13 in A, D.664, Op.120

Piano Sonata No.14 in A-, D.784, Op.posth.143

Piano Sonata No.15 in C, D.840 ('Relique')

Piano Sonata No.16 in A-, D.845, Op.42

Piano Sonata No.17 in D, D.850, Op.53 ('Gasteiner')

Piano Sonata No.18 in G, D.894, Op.78 ('Fantasy')

Piano Sonata No.19 in C-, D.958

Piano Sonata No.20 in A, D.959

Piano Sonata No.21 in Bb, D.960

I don't know whether Classical Archives is enough as a reference, but it is clearly the numbering system that is often encountered. I'd like to know the sources of this numbering system, where does it originate?

That being said, whether representation of the 1888 and the "current" numbering systems are best served by a table or a flat list is still to be determined. Anyhow I'll remove the B column ASAP when I have some time. OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recovered the "B" numbering system (19 sonatas): plain and simple, it was the

Neue Schubert-Ausgabe VII/2, 1–3 numbering system. Added it to Sonatas, duos and fantasies by Franz Schubert#Numbered editions ([1]

)

L'orchestra virtuale del Flaminio: Franz Schubert - Catalogo delle composizioni versione completa appears an excellent source for the numbering system going to 23 piano sonatas. Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement suggestions for the table

I think your previous suggestion on finding out whether the Wiener Urtext Edition has a numbering system is an excellent idea. I would be of the opinion that a printed edition carries much more weight as a serious reference than a website like Classical Music Archives or Flaminio Online. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the Wiener Urtext Edition. But let me try to look into that.

I think it is good trying to find common ground between our ideas. I am trying to look at the table in a positive manner and I have some questions for you in that regard: 1) Is it your intention to include all Deutsch numbers related to a piano work, or just the "large" works, as it seemed it was your initial proposal? 2) Would you consider working on the table in this talk page and presenting it in the article once it is complete? I just feel a little uneasy about having incomplete info. out there. 3) How much of the format of the table would you be willing to play around with? I have some ideas but I would like to know if you would be open for suggestions. 4) Would you be willing to use my findings from the bullet list and incorporate them to the table? I think this would help us achieve uniformity within the article and could save a lot of time as we all know editing the table is a tedious process. Solti79 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1: The two-hands piano works. I started with the most prominent works, but given enough time (also for decent references) I'd go through the list of all two-hands piano works on this page.

Re. 2: I'd keep it on the encyclopedia page: there's more chance others may join in and help. There's no "incomplete" info: nothing has been removed from the page since I extracted the table from an earlier version of the page and started working on it.

Re. 3: Of course I'm open to suggestions. that's the advantage of a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

Re. 4: Of course, I already did so for most of what was there regarding sonata (movements). I think the table is already a bit easier to edit since I retrieved it a few days ago. Feel free, if the layout doesn't work out I'm sure we'll be able to find help to improve, etc...

My last update to the page was regarding D 13: I included the tempo indication which I had found on the Italian and OAW websites, but did not (yet) include the info that it is possibly for organ (info included in the miscellaneous section list currently), while I'm not too sure which source contains that claim. So if there's a decent reference, it can be included in the table too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. 1: Ok, I agree with working to have all two-hand piano works on the list. In terms of the References, what I used for the bullet list were the Deutsch catalogue (do you have access to it?) and the Online Database of the Neue Schubert Ausgabe (I considered these as the two primary sources for this project). I think those could work, right? Based on the research conducted, I should tell you that OAW is good obviously but not always very exact compared to the other two.

Re. 2: By "incomplete" I meant that if the goal is to have all piano works for two hands, we don't have that yet. But that's ok, we could work on it in the article if that is what you prefer. Of course, there is the risk that other people will join and make this controversial again :)

Re. 3 and 4: This is what I had in mind. I think it would be good to add the Deutsch No. and Opus columns in the left part of the table as all works will have one or both. We know the Sonatas are the only works that will use the two numbering systems columns, so it made more sense to me to switch these. I would suggest using all the titles as in the bullet list, if you don't mind (I used the terms in English and found this more convenient). Also, I originally reserved italics for nicknames of works. For the date, I just wonder how convenient it is to be so specific to add day, month and year of composition, considering how this would affect the order of works where we only know the year. By the way, I didn't add all references, just wanted you to take a look first (see table in the bottom): Solti79 (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

• I'd try to limit column width for the numerical fields, by using very short column headers (which can be explained in a legend)
• Order of the columns: no particular preference
• Names of the compositions: in principle I'd prefer the
  WP:COMMONNAME in English in the "Title" column. However that might be a bit troublesome, e.g. D 459/459A, 571(/604/570), etc. Maybe we can settle on the names as in the 1951 Deutsch catalogue (that edition was in English), but alas no, I don't have access to the Deutsch catalogue (nor the English one, nor the German version although I suppose this list
  would be fiable).
• Titles of works are usually in italics (that would be Sonata, Ländler), tempo indications plain (e.g. Allegro), movement names (as in: not tempo indications, e.g. Scherzo, Minuet/Menuetto, Trio - some of which might also be stand-alone compositions) is where it gets tricky, e.g. II. Scherzo. Allegro - Trio. Più tardo, but II. Scherzo: Allegro - Trio: Più tardo might be better (smallcaps is still an excellent solution too afaic). → apparently generic names are not italicised, my wrong, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles. Roman numerals, or automatic numbers by #: no preference → slight preference for the automatic numbers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd avoid piped links in this fashion:
  Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157
  — for that reason linking from the "Name" column is difficult. "D. <number>" or "D <number>" (with or without period) - equal to me, but I'm not going to change them before this is settled in the page names.
• Dates, I'd use as much detail as is available: all dates are sorted by "data-sort-value" now, all yyyy-mm-dd, with mm=01 and dd=01 if month and day are unknown.
• Re. D. 2D: I couldn't find a single reference for the piano version of the first two of these minuets? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the column width should be limited, so you are right about the headers. I also agree with what you state regarding the names of compositions. Whenever I ran into trouble with this, which was really only for 459/459 A and 946 I included the name in German as well.

Yes, I was not very happy to put the link in the "Sonata" title, but don't you think it looks a little weird to have the title, key, and Deutsch No. repeated in the Details column? If so, can we come up with another idea to solve this?

Ok about the dates.

Yes, those Minuets threw me off as well at first. These are basically piano versions for what later Schubert made into a version for winds. The Deutsch catalogue states that the first edition was in 1956, in the "Complete Dances" set issued by G. Henle Verlag, edited by Paul Mies. I was able to get a copy of the score in an edition by New York: Heinrichshofen Edition, C.F. Peters Corp., 1979. Pianist Michael Endres recorded them for his "Complete Dances" set in the Capriccio label. Solti79 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For German/English names a solution as 4th and 5th column of List of symphonies with names might be considered (...which would mean another column, width downside)
• I added a link to the online version of the 1978 Deutsch catalogue to the page. P. 7-8 of that version of the catalogue indeed contains the information you provided re. the piano version of D 2D.
• For the 1951 (English) edition of the catalogue I couldn't find a link, so no uniform solution for English names found yet.
• Other idea for the Wikipedia links to the sonatas (and in which column): I think the Wikipedia page names for the piano works need to be solved first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After careful consideration of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music):

• Without period:
  BWV
  , HWV, etc.
• With period: K. (Köchel), D. (Deutsch)

Article titles:

• Fünf Klavierstücke
  can discuss Sonata D. 459
• Delete Sonata pages without potential, like
  Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 769a (Schubert)
  (or make them a redirect to this list page)
• Others: follow 4th method of
  Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)
  ; (Schubert) no longer needed as disambiguator.
• Three last sonatas merit each a separate article I suppose, although an article that compares these three sonatas (Schubert's last sonatas) is definitely a plus.

Linking from the table (and English version of titles): can be solved by transforming the 3rd column (with the sonata numbers up to 23) to "Name^[3]", and renaming 4th column to "Orig. name". In the 3th column for example

Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)

NavBox: I would make that a NavBox for all piano works that have a separate article (not only the sonatas but also

No. 12 (D. 571 — 604 — 570) etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC) First sonata moved:[reply]

• Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 - 157)

With aditionally this "scores" navbox external links template:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And succession boxes (this one for

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→ added title to succession box --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Sorry I have not been able to keep up much with this lately. With regard to the last points mentioned:

Regrettably, I must disagree about the D. X vs D X As I mentioned, despite tradition, I think we should base our decision in this case not in Wikipedia conventions but in the actual way that the Schubert authorities in Tübingen have decided to proceed with the edition of the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe. To me, their opinion carries great weight given the fact that I see it not as a POV, but as the primary source (along with the Deutsch catalogue), for research and reference involving this project.

I agree that pages of Sonatas without potential should be deleted or re-directed to this list. Based on what I was looking into in one of the links sent earlier, I think we should consider what the Wikipedia Manual of Style discusses regarding Generic and True Titles. As such, any true title would be in German while all generic titles could be in English. This is however, a little tricky as it would involve some discussion as to which are which. I would also have some questions with regards to how to treat titles like Deutsche, Ecossaisen, Ländler, etc., which might be generic but some of which sound better in German than in an English translation.

I feel like we should look further into the option of naming Sonatas either with just one Deutsch number (D 571) or several (D 571 - 604- 570 or D 571/604/570). The second options look very bizarre to me, and given the fact that the inclusion of the loose movements has never been officially accepted, I would be weary of including additional Deutsch numbers in the title. Of course, this doesn´t mean I don´t honestly believe these movements go with these Sonatas and should be included when performing them. But I think this could easily be discussed within the article. Perhaps here it would be wise to find out if there are valid sources that list more than one Deutsch number for every sonata and take it from there? I should be getting information on the Wiener Urtext edition within the next few days, and given the fact that we know this edition includes the loose movements it could be a good reference for us.

Could you upload here an example of the table with the new proposed ideas to see how it looks? Thanks. Solti79 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input,

• Re. "D. xxx" (with period) — I suppose that's the dominant habit in English-language writing (referring to German-language writing has little weight here). What I say is that the guidelines would need to be changed before it is done any other way. For example
  Piano Trio, D. 898 (Schubert). In order to change the guideline it would need to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Feel free, I'm not going to devote my energy to that currently. (I've been in a discussion regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials
  for several months now, I can assure you that these discussions aren't all that interesting)
• Re. True titles/Generic titles. I think the guidance in the MoS is a bit confusing... that being said it is nowhere written that true titles should be in the original language, e.g. Franz Schubert's Trout Quintet is used as an example. So, Wanderer Fantasy is OK (doesn't need to be changed in Wanderer-Fantasie). For the example what it would look like, see List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Quick reference (work in progress - there are still various English names in the 4th column currently). Re. Deutsche, Ecossaisen, Ländler, etc. I think when in English it is customary to use the German name, then that's the name I'd use in the third column. Compare Goldberg Variations (not Goldberg Variationen), Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12, not Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing, BWV 12.
• Re. naming all involved D. numbers in page names, e.g.
  Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 - 157)
  : it's not that we're going to have a separate Wikipedia article on D. 154 anywhere soon. D. 154 is discussed in that article, that's why I'd be clear about that in the page title.
• Wiener Urtext edition input would be very welcome, looking forward to it! --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scores template

See above → Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Piano sonata in E major (D. 157)/Scores --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New template {{Schubert scores}}:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively,

{{subst:User:Francis Schonken/Schubert scores |composition1 = D. 154: Sonata (Allegro) in E major, possible sketch to the first movement of D. 157 |manuscript1 = [http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/werke_einzelansicht_en.php?werke_id=271&herkunft=allewerke id=271 at schubert-online.at (OAW)] |firstedition1 = [[scores:Franz_Schubert%27s_Werke_(Schubert,_Franz)|AGA]] |AGA1 = [[scores:Allegro_in_E_major,_D.154_(Schubert,_Franz)|Series XXI, No. 8 (in Volume 2)]] |WUE1 = Tirimo, Martino. ''Schubert: The Complete Piano Sonatas.'' Vienna: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1997 |NSA1 = [https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/sheetmusic/product/?artNo=BA5553 VII/2/1, Anhang No. 1] |composition2 = D. 157: Piano Sonata in E major |manuscript2 = [http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/werke_einzelansicht_en.php?werke_id=272&herkunft=allewerke id=272 at schubert-online.at (OAW)] |firstedition2 = [[scores:Franz_Schubert%27s_Werke_(Schubert,_Franz)|AGA]] |AGA2 = [[scores:Piano_Sonata_No.1,_D.157_(Schubert,_Franz)|Serie X, No. 1]] |WUE2 = Tirimo, Martino. ''Schubert: The Complete Piano Sonatas.'' Vienna: Wiener Urtext Edition, 1997 |NSA2 = [https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/sheetmusic/product/?artNo=BA5553 VII/2/1, Klaviersonaten I: No. 1] |composition3 = |manuscript3 = |firstedition3 = |AGA3 = |WUE3 = |NSA3 = }}

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  Talk:Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)#Scores template — the proper way --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

From http://www.universaledition.com/sheet-music-and-more/Complete-Sonatas-fuer-Klavier-Schubert-Franz-UT50220 :

Vol. 1

• Sonate Nr. 1 E- Dur / E major D 157
• Sonate Nr. 2 C-Dur / C major D 279
• Sonate Nr. 3 E-Dur / E major D 459
• Sonate Nr. 4 a-Moll / A minor D 537
• Sonate Nr. 5 As-Dur / A flat major D 557
• Sonate Nr. 6 e-Moll / E minor D 566
• Sonate Nr. 7 Des-Dur / D flat major D 567
• Sonate Nr. 8 Es-Dur / E flat major D 568
• Fragment E-Dur / E major D 154
• Menuetto a-Moll / A minor D 277A

Vol. 2

• Sonate Nr. 9 fis-Moll / F sharp major D 571
• Sonate Nr. 10 H-Dur / B major D 575
• Sonate Nr. 11 C-Dur / C major D 613
• Sonate Nr. 12 f-Moll / F minor D 625
• Sonate Nr. 13 A-Dur / A major D 664
• Sonate Nr. 14 a-Moll / A minor D 784
• Sonate Nr. 15 C-Dur / C major D 840
• Sonate Nr. 16 a-Moll / A minor D 845
• Fragment Sonate cis-Moll / C sharp minor D 655
• Fragment Sonate e-Moll / E minor D 769A

Vol. 3

• Sonate Nr. 17 D-Dur / D major D 850
• Sonate Nr. 18 G-Dur / G major D 894
• Sonate Nr. 19 A-Dur / A major D 958
• Sonate Nr. 20 A-Dur / A major D 959
• Sonate Nr. 21 B-Dur / B flat major D 960

--Francis Schonken (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completion of the article

I just submitted a more completed version of the article. I understand some changes were made with regard to the previous discussion, so I would like to explain the reasoning for these:

• As mentioned earlier, I added a section that explains more in detail the problem with the Piano Sonatas and the independent movements. Hopefully this is clear and serves as a good introduction to the topic.
• With regard to the numbering systems, I broadened the topic to include a few more sources. I checked with one of the websites (flaminio) to inquire about their sources for the numbering system that has 23 sonatas. They claimed it might have originated in the recording industry but suggested not paying much attention to it, giving its unofficial status. Given that there is no definite source to list, and the fact that as I mentioned, the system is arbitrary in the numbering, I felt it was not a good idea to include it in the table.
• I made modifications to the table that we agreed upon: changed the order of columns for Deutsch numbers and opus numbers, added dates with as much detail as possible, added links to autographs and scores when available, listed tempo markings and movements. When adding titles, I noticed that many times the key was part of the title itself. I also realized that having the keys listed separately was becoming a burden, especially when thinking about the dances (would have to list hundreds of keys, making the table obnoxiously long and ineffective). This was therefore not functional and would not even be beneficial in lieu of the fact that the key column would lose its sortability. As such, I felt it was best to combine the key and title columns.
• To clarify the difference between sonata movements and works that have multiple numbers, I used (I, II, etc.) for Sonatas and (1, 2, etc) for works with multiple pieces. I think this distinction is helpful and necessary.
• As I have pointed out several times before, the formatting of Deutsch numbers (with no dot following the D, and with capital letters following numbers) comes directly from the most authoritative primary sources there can be (Deutsch catalogue and Neue Schubert-Ausgabe). These should not be controversial or open to interpretation. If the authorities in Tübingen/Vienna have the power to issue new Deutsch numbers, they can also issue a format for how Deutsch numbers should appear, regardless of whatever guideline Wiki might have in place. I really hope this point can be understood and supported going forward. Regards, Solti79 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formidable job, however some thoughts:

1. There's enough material now to split off the piano sonatas in a separate (sub)article, something like Schubert's sonatas for piano solo, or Schubert's Piano Sonatas when some info on sonatas by more than one player is included. I also think such article should give some attention to piano fantasies.

Update: started

Schubert's sonatas and fantasies for piano --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

1. References:
   1. Many references were destroyed (22 after my last update to the page vs. 7 now), that's a no-no.
   2. Too little references on the new content, e.g. which sonatas are complete and which aren't (and in what fashion they're incomplete) is extensively discussed by scholars, giving lists with codes about the mode of incompleteness and further detail (e.g. Benson 2008, and M. J. E. Brown before him). Note that different views need to be given about what is "complete" and what is "incomplete", with appropriate references. Also, I don't see much mention of the sonatas (or parts thereof) included in AGA series XXI volume 2 and 3.
2. I had been getting rather fond of how the columns were managed before yesterday's large update. I described it as a work in progress [2] after which there were no further comments for a month. Then override it without discussion, nor proposal how to manage, is not very consensus-seeking ("...we agreed upon..." is a deceptive overstatement). I haven't gone through the details yet, but on first sight I have my doubts.
3. Regarding the layout of the first section, let's say there's room for much improvement.
4. D. or D issue: German scholars, whatever their competence on the numbers, don't decide on the English language. Compare KV/K./K for the Kôchel numbers: most of the recordings I have use "KV" (...but I live on the European continent), yet Wikipedia uses "K." — Re. "... not ... open to interpretation": sorry about that, it is open to interpretation. Have you checked Otto Erich Deutsch, The Schubert Thematic Catalogue. New York:
   WP:RM
   standard procedure is not to move a page to a new title unless there is a consensus to do so.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, thanks for the complement, and the comments.

• My apologies, it was not my intention to get rid of references. But all of the titles in German and dates, except for a couple of entries, were taken from the Deutsch catalogue. Can we find a way to list this that does not require every single title/date to have a reference number? (we are talking over 200 numbers here). In the "Notes/Details" section we probably should play it by ear, but it's true, more references can be used here as well.
• And yes, more references on the new content are definitely needed. If you have access to Benson and Brown, could you help out with this a bit? I will look for other options in the resources I have at hand, as well.
• I am aware that sometime went by before this big update. But this was 1) because you suggested to leave the page alone for a while, and 2) because as you can imagine, it took a very long time to complete the table. I understand there are some differences in the format from the previous version. I kindly ask you to consider them as a viable option going forward.
• I definitely agree that there is room for improvement on the layout of the first section. What do you have in mind? Carlos Solti79 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert's dances according to G. Henle Verlag:

6 Ecossaisen D 421
Ecossaise D 511
8 Ecossaisen D 529
Menuett D 600
Johann Sebastian Bach: Trio zu betrachten als verlorner Sohn eines Menuetts D 610
Deutscher Tanz und Ecossaise D 643
8 Ländler D 681
5 Ecossaisen D 697
Variation über einen Walzer von A. Diabelli D 718
Deutscher Tanz D 722
16 Ländler und 2 Ecossaisen op. 67 D 734
Galopp und 8 Ecossaisen op. 49 D 735
2 Deutsche Tänze D 769
34 Valses sentimentales op. 50 D 779
11 Ecossaisen D 781
Ecossaise D 782
16 Deutsche Tänze und 2 Ecossaisen op. 33 D 783
12 Deutsche Tänze genannt "Ländler" op. post. 171 D 790
3 Ecossaisen D 816
6 Deutsche Tänze D 820
2 Deutsche Tänze D 841
Walzer genannt "Albumblatt" D 844
12 Grazer Walzer op. 91 D 924
Grazer Galopp D 925
12 Valses nobles op. 77 D 969
6 Deutsche Tänze D 970
3 Deutsche Tänze D 971
3 Deutsche Tänze D 972
3 Deutsche Tänze D 973
2 Deutsche Tänze D 974
Deutscher Tanz D 975
Cotillon D 976
8 Ecossaisen D 977
Walzer D 978
Walzer D 979
2 Walzer D 980
2 Ländler D 679 (980B)
20 Menuette D 41
2 Menuette mit 4 Trios D 91
12 Wiener Deutsche D 128
Walzer D 139
12 Walzer, 17 Ländler und 9 Ecossaisen op. 18 D 145
20 "Letzte Walzer" op. post. 127 D 146
Ecossaise D 158
12 Ecossaisen D 299
Menuett D 334
Menuett mit 2 Trios D 335
Menuett D 336
36 "Erste Walzer" op. 9 D 365
17 Ländler D 366
8 Ländler D 378
Johann Sebastian Bach: 3 Menuette D 380
12 Deutsche Tänze D 420

I can't bear to organize that table, though. - Gus ^{(T, C)} 2010-11-01 16:12Z

• This started when I moved
  Piano Sonata in E major, D. 154 - 157 (Schubert)
  , to make it consistent with all the other Schubert sonatas. Then Francis came to my talk page:

(a) Copied from User talk:JackofOz

Hi Jack,

Regarding Schubert's piano sonatas, see Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table — you're very welcome to take part in that discussion.

Sorry that I didn't get around yet to move the other Schubert piano sonata pages, I'll get to it ASAP, and once there is an OK on the issues being tested/clarified.

Also, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation, and the examples included there: "sonata" is definitely not capitalised in a page title like Violin sonata in A major (HWV 361), which is the example used in the guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Schubert's last sonatas is the current page title for D. 958 — 959 — 960 (the three last piano sonatas), not Schubert's last Sonatas. Please don't force an illusive uniformity, where there is none currently. If you want to work towards uniformity in these page names, Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table is the place to be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Francis. In the meantime, however long "the meantime" may be, and thanks to me, all the Schubert sonata articles are now consistently formatted. That is all I wanted to do, and I did it by moving one (1) page. When other decisions get made, then they can be implemented uniformly. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, err, no, they're not consistently formatted, as I pointed out above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes. Please see Category:Piano sonatas by Franz Schubert. The first one on the list was the odd man out. I fixed that. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At this point, Francis moved
  Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)
  and then moved all the other Schubert sonatas to a similar format.

(b) Copied from User talk:Francis Schonken

Reformatting of titles (Schubert piano sonatas)

Hi, Francis. My only concern, now that you've moved all the Schubert piano sonatas to the new format (lower case "sonata"), is that they're all now out of step with ALL the sonatas and similar works by other composers (e.g. Piano Sonata No. 16 (Beethoven), Piano Sonata No. 3 (Brahms), Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), Violin Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev), Piano Concerto No. 1 (Chopin) ................

Is it your intention to move ALL of these to your new format? I must say that I have seen no discussion of this change. If you could please show me where it's been debated, I'd be very pleased.

I would also point out the difference between referring to, for example, "the piano sonatas of Beethoven" generically (NOT "the Piano Sonatas of Beethoven"), and Piano Sonata No. 16 (Beethoven) (NOT Piano sonata No. 16 (Beethoven)). Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(c) Copied from User talk:JackofOz

Other sonatas, concertos etc.

Well, the others are less of my concern,

• Concertos etc.: per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) capitalized;
• Sonatas: seem to be the only exception at
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
  rationale.
• Anyhow, as I already pointed out, Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table would be my preferred place to discuss this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(d) Now read on

OK. The guidelines Francis linked to do indeed give the example of Violin sonata in A major (HWV 361), NOT Violin Sonata in A major (HWV 361). But why is this the case? All other violin etc sonatas are, e.g. Violin Sonata No. 3 (Brahms), NOT Violin sonata No. 3 (Brahms). Can someone explain what the *** is going on here, because I, for one, am thoroughly confused. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→ Discussion continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217160530/http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217160530/http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217160530/http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm to http://www.schubert-online.at/activpage/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]