While it's true that several of Pleyel's works were published as sets under one Opus number, they still are sequential according to B number. Which one do you think we should follow? The sortable list of works goes by B number, and most major catolgues do as well, so I don't think it would be inappropriate to abolish the Op. number from the work titles. Maybe it can mentioned as an alternative catalog number in the general information field. BKhon 19:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why is it necessary to? Whatever the following Benton's numbering has among other library listings, it's hard to argue that most people looking for a specific work will remember them and not the opus numbers (which they were published under, after all). That being said, with the separate sets of opus numbers used, we should at least try to figure out which is the most widespread and make a note of it on the category page. Even with that complication, it's my personal opinion that it wouldn't do us much good to simply remove recognizable and useful information from page titles. Cheers, KGill talk email 19:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you that opus numbers should not be removed completely; since, however, many works by Pleyel were published under different opus numbers by different publishers, the preference should, if possible, always be given to the opus number of the first edition. The only sure way to identify Pleyels works is the Benton number (which follows in the different genres the chronology of the works), and I would propose to put it always before the opus number (this would, by the way, also restore the original chronological order in the Trios for Keyboard, Violin and Cello), e.g.: "6 String Quartets, B.346-351 (Op.15) (Pleyel, Ignace Joseph)". Cgo
Several pages have been marked for cleanup lately, because they should be split into separate works. I cannot see any reason to do so:
1. The works were conceived by Pleyel, as was usual at his time, as works consisting of normally six or three compositions, and published in this way together.
2. They are listed also in Benton's catalogue in this way (for example, the incipits of B.501-506 are listed together; then follows the list of the different editions of these six duets.
3. It would be very difficult to split all the scores which include a complete opus with six or three works into several files.(sometimes in old editions the works even start in the middle of a page). Best wishes, Cgo
- I agree, the works should not be marked for cleanup. The "clean-up" template is now removed for each of the items, BKhon 01:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)