Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Transitioning this to AfD following rejection of a speedy deletion request [1]. The rejection of the speedy deletion is only on procedural grounds, as WP:G4 does not apply due to there being significant differences between the deleted version and the now current version. This is something that the person proposing the speedy deletion could not see. I have no comment on whether to keep or delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As original requester; the concerns of the first AfD are still present, this is an unecessary WP:SPLIT by an editor who is trying to bypass multiple RfCs on the article talk page. I see very little information that is not already covered on the main article; and even less information which could not reasonably be covered there. An unecessary WP:CFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify: currently, despite the parent article (BWV 53) standing at about 120 kB in wikitext size, there's only 10 kB of readable prose... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect – the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present (see here and here, and here). The next bit of the first "delete" !voter's comment is unjustified ad hominem, followed by a reason not to have this at AfD in the first place: even if this would be a content fork (which it isn't) AfD is not the place to sort content forks. See WP:AfD, first bullet in the first big box on that page, after "... consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate" it says:
For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, ..., or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
(emphasis added). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Content forks and POV forks (as opposite to simple POV problems) are entirely within the scope of AfD, if the only reasonable solution is to put them back in the main article, and such bold action without a discussion (given that this was just recently deleted for a first time, and the re-creation does not address my concerns that the split is still unjustified; and that the only history to merge is by one single contributor, who could add it to the main article instead) would be reckless... And if it is a duplicate article, then you are right it is not AfD, it's WP:A10. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: "duplicate article" refers to "content fork"; a "duplicate article" with "POV problems" is a "POV fork". But the problem isn't yours: your comment only illustrated it. The problem is Hammersoft's, who initiated this AfD throwing precaution to the wind. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem however, RandomCanadian, and apparently also Smerus's below, that is that if "content fork" would have been the actual problem, then you'd not steer for "delete", but for turning this into a redirect, as is, or after merging material currently missing from the BWV 53 article. So, I don't see either of you actually believing the "content fork" hypothesis, which per current guidance would lead to a different outcome than the one you propose. Let me give you an example. A very common component of any article on a church cantata is mentioning the composition's performance time. No performance time is currently mentioned in the BWV 53 article. It is currently mentioned in the discography article. That is not a "content fork" of any sort. That is normal WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for the cantata article, with the detail covered in the "see also" discography article. Deleting the information is without merit: it belongs in the cantata article (which is anyhow justified), and/or in the discography article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now Kusma steers for the same contradiction: if it is a content fork it should be turned into a redirect (with or without first merging content from the current discography article), and not deleted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a content fork you started by ignoring the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page - there are such discussions, and it is rather clear that editors have decided that Wikipedia is not a database listing of recordings; or a place where you can impose you preferred style of citation. Anyway, redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor. Additionally, except for a short note about brisker tempi in light of the HIP movement (which I'm not sure if it's on the WP:SYNTH side of things), which you can add there yourself, there's nothing to be merged. Anyway, you've had you chance to give your point, and obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork, so let's just drop it for now and let others give their unpit. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... the normal editing process, which is to reach WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page ..." – incorrect, a discography article can be started without such prior consensus, as a normal process. That's even policy. It's called WP:BOLD. Besides, the talk page of the BWV 53 is not "normally" the place where other articles and their content are discussed. Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography is for discussion of the content of the discography article (and its referencing style), not the talk page of the BWV 53 article. Yes, I'm the first major contributor of the discography page, so I normally take the lead on its referencing style. Are you saying that taking "first major contributor" status on the discography article away from me is one of the objectives of this AfD? Really...

Again, it is not a content fork, at least not of a type that shouldn't exist on its own: WP:SPINOFFs are OK, and should not be dragged to AfD. You also keep ignoring that the list (i.e. the content of the table) is considerably more complete than what can be found in the recordings section of the BWV 53 article.

Re. "... which you can add there yourself ..." – which I did. But that content is not visible any more, is it? I'd be happy if you made it reappear there. That is called "merging", so indeed, what you propose is "merging", not "deletion". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "redirecting would be a valid option if this wasn't already partially copied from the article it's to be merged to, and if you weren't the sole contributor" neither has anything to do with the validity of a redirect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "obviously you're not going to convince me that this is a valid fork" – I'm open to being convinced of whatever is reasonable. So give your reasons, instead of burying yourself in an (apparently) indefensible position. I only say that I can't see it as an invalid fork, currently. I'd even like to be convinced otherwise, but the RfC mentioned below decided otherwise, and I'm living by that consensus. Which implies a separate article for the more comprehensive discography, while it isn't included in the main article, by consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You boldly (arguably, for your own reasons) made a spinoff; people are questioning the validity of said spin off: that is a perfectly valid reason for AfD; please stop the rules-lawyering about mostly inexact procedural points (per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY). I said I'm dropping it so I'm not going to be answering any further. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the "normal" place to question a spinoff. It can be if and when other, more collaborative, routes to find consensus were tried earlier on. Which isn't the case here. There was, I'm afraid, too much prejudgement in the minds of those who wanted this AfD at all cost, without premeditation in the form of lending an ear to those suggesting another approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated !vote, per DGG's rationale below: "merge/redirect" would still be my first choice (consistent with my earlier comments on the matter), and only "keep" as second choice, in the case the RfC outcome would not be subject to WP:CCC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per RandomCanadian above. The article orignally conceived and deliberately intended as fork has been reinstated with some different wording by the connivance of its creator after a deletion discussion. As it is it is effectively no more than a duplication of the main article it remains a superfluous fork. The creator's assertions above that the concerns of the first AfD are no longer present, and that it is not a fork, are unconvincing to say the least. And to assist the discussion below, where there are assertions that editors may not be aware of, or understand, what a fork is, I add here the definition under WP:CFORK- "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.". Further, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy". I therefore believe, and am confident that I have reason to believe, that the aricle here under discussion is a clear POV fork, inconsistent with WP policy. Smerus (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
It's what you suggested at the RFC: "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so"[2], and all other support was based on that. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm trying to get a normal distribution of material relating to recordings of a work to its main and discography articles respectively, as it currently works, for instance, for (FA!) BWV 4 (and its discography), and (GA!) BWV 243 (and its discography), that is:
1. No list of recordings in the main article about the composition: highlights of the composition's recording history are in the prose of the article. An actual list of recordings in the main article makes little sense if a more or less complete list of recordings is too large and for that reason put in a separate article.
2. The separate discography article is in list form.

The concluded RfC on which recordings can be mentioned in the BWV 53 article prevents a more or less complete listing of recordings in that article, thus making a full listing of recordings in a separate article a quite normal proceeding, as also the conversion of the incomplete list to prose in the composition's article (who needs an incomplete list if a complete list is available elsewhere?). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we have just established in the first AfD that there should not be a content fork of the article. Also note that Francis Schonken suggested not to have a separate discography article not long ago. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... which was before the RfC (linked above) ended in a consensus to exclude part of the discography from the main article (which is already implemented). So, that's the current consensus about the BWV 53 article, after which a more comprehensive discography on a separate page is just a normal next step. Regards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, try, once in a lifetime, not to divert the discussion with other references, and understand that the present objections are to the present article as a content fork.--Smerus (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, again, content forks are normally turned into redirects (even without AfD): the fact that you didn't !vote for it to be turned into a redirect is a clear indication that you don't believe it is a content fork, but that this is... I don't know what you think, but this all seems rather counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "content fork" argument: it isn't a content fork. What's more to say? The "content fork" argument was put forward without anyone explaining why it would be a content fork. Above, I gave an example why it isn't a content fork. Could give more examples. Are my counterarguments perhaps inconvenient for those contending it is a content fork but failing to explain why it would be? There's no diverting of the discussion by me. I explained what I'm working towards. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused: so this subarticle has 9 or 10 more entries in the table than the main article, and a "time" column? That does not look like a good reason to have a subarticle, but really just a fork to display a different version of the table. —Kusma (t·c) 20:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT: There have been a number of speculative comments in this AfD regarding the motivations behind the edits of various contributors to this AfD. This sort of behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop. To all of you; drop the sticks and back away. Any further comments should be directed solely towards reaching consensus about retention of this article. This is an AfD, not a battleground. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53#Recordings largely per RandomCanadian, as I agree this seems to be an unnecessary SPLIT since this is already covered there. I don't agree with the characterization of it as a content fork, and I don't understand what POV this supposedly represents (if the "POV" is just the "POV" that this should be a separate page, that doesn't count), but there's no need to resolve it on that basis. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object in principle to making this a deletion and redirect, only that I have a fear that it may be brought once more to resurrection. How would we prevent that happening?--Smerus (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In principle this could be made a redirect, but given that the regular search function would be able to point any readers interested to the correct section; and that there's no real need for a merge, it would be unecessary, and well we don't need more resurrections of this already once deleted article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect per the consensus at the first AFD which still applies. In reviewing the massive amount of time waisted on this issue in multiple locations from talk pages to AFD and RFC actions, all of this boils down to a case of forum shopping by User:Francis Schonken in which the user has attempted to countermand community consensus in multiple locations in regards to the inclusion criteria and referencing requirements of the discography of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde. In short this article was created in contradiction to the consensus reached at RFC and AFD and conversations of the main article's talk page. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I strongly urge Francis Schonlen to read policy at Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and recognize that at some point one must choose to accept community consensus (even when we disagree) and let it go and move on to edit elsewhere. If this sort of behavior continues, I will be taking this to WP:ANI. I say this as a neutral observer who has not participated in any of these conversations previously.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my objections expressed at the previous discussion, as well as per User:RandomCanadian and User:Smerus. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography there was consensus that it could be included in the main article. Then at the RFC there was consensus not to include it. The discussion that led to the RFC is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions but there is not much participation and it is unlikely to change the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings: "If the artist's or work's discography is extensive, it can be split out to a separate article". The "POV fork" argument would be that according to a guideline these don't meet the criteria for inclusion, whether in the main article or as a separate page, but the RFC was because of the number of recordings, so a WP:SPINOFF is recommended by the WikiProject guideline and acceptable according to Wikipedia:Content forking. Peter James (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the RfC at the article was not about removing the recordings altogether, but which ones should be included; which resulted in a "only significant ones [reviewed in independent sources]" limitation, which seems coherent with WP:NOTDATABSE. The fork is nothing but an attempt to circumvent that by including a non-consensus listing in avoidance of the conclusion of the RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section also says to provide a summary of major works and link to a separate discography, and it is accepted that no such limitation exists - there are many featured lists such as Johnny Winter discography (which seems to be the most recent discography to be promoted). The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography was only "delete" because the RFC was open and editors thought that it was short enough to be included in the main article. "There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so" was the only reason given in the RFC, and without that option the outcome would have been different. Peter James (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale" - this looks like an attempt to circumvent that by creating discussion outcomes that contradict each other. If there is wider consensus to limit discographies in this way, it will result in deletion of most discography articles, including many that are featured lists such as the one I mentioned. Peter James (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject guidelines are usually the thing that is LOCALCONSENSUS. If editors at a particular page decide that a more specific application at that particular page is required - in this case the reasoning was that this is one of the most recorded cantatas (being one for a solo singer) and that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database-like listing of every recording of all of them. There was no consensus to remove the discography from the article; simply to keep it but with a bit of a stricter inclusion criteria. Whether this is a case of multiple contradicting guidelines which are not helping things (WP:CREEP comes to mind) is a different matter, but this doesn't change that, in the current state, the article under discussion was created in clear opposition to an existing consensus against it's existence (both at AfD and at the article talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus also applies to individual AFDs, for example, which is what I was referring to. Consensus at the first AFD was not the content shouldn't exist, but that it could be included in the main article. If every "delete, it can be included in the main article" or similar is changed to "keep", which it would be based on the consensus at the RFC, the AFD consensus disappears and the RFD applies, which was about whether it should be in the main article. Similarly, if every "a separate discography can be created" is removed from the RFD the consensus there is reversed. For WP:NOTDATABASE there is consensus that some complete lists belong in an encyclopedia; these include discographies as well as other topics such as NRHP lists. Do you think there is now consensus throughout the site to include only notable items in discographies or are you arguing for that as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here? Peter James (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think RandomCanadian's recent changes to the WP:NOT policy, e.g. [3] (to put it mildly: not very well coordinated with WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY), also telling. I reverted the attempt to change the policy: this needs further discussion and strong consensus if such policy change would be acceptable. I don't think Wikipedia should change policies every time an editor with a bee in his or her bonnet passes. Under current policies and other guidance, bibliographies and discographies are a common component of the encyclopedia, that is, of course when complying to the "context information" requirement of WP:NOTDIR, which is the case for the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Hammersoft:, User:Francis Schonken and User:RandomCanadian are clearly having battles elsewhere in WP, but can these battles please be excluded from this thread and can we keep to its topic? I have been aware that it is a frequent part of Francis Schonken's tactics to fork discussions by bringing in all sorts of other material to obscure the matter being discussed -and indeed that is a basic resaon why the present disucssion has come about - but some sort of focus would be helpful. Both he and RandomCanadian have cast their votes here - enough already!--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was answering honest questions; but ok, I'll stop. As for Francis again detracting the conversation by bringing up a minor clarification (unless he's saying that excessive listings of books and publications are exempt from WP:NOT, which is the actual non-consensus position) that has absolutely no link to this AfD (if he took a moment to look at the date that would be plainly and blatantly obvious), that's his problem; and I'm not obliged to answer, indeed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is consensus for that or not, but there is context in this discography as well as being a WP:SPINOFF of content that is only missing from the main article because of length. When fewer recordings had been made, these would have been encyclopedic content, and that doesn't change when new recordings are released. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, in case you were in any doubt, I think we also get your point by now.--Smerus (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is not all that much extra content in this additional article. A few more recordings do not seem to me to merit a spinoff article. (Note also that we have spent an amazing amount of effort has been spent on the question whether 20 or 30 recordings should be presented to readers. I don't super care about that, but I am opposed to having one version with 20 recordings and another one with 30 recordings at the same time). —Kusma (t·c) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sourcing and inclusion concerns. I haven't had time to go through the article to review sources carefully, but I have some strong concerns about sources just on a cursory check. Some of the urls link to websites selling materials and do not support the content (for example Melchior Hoffmann (1679–1715): "Sound your knell, blest hour of parting" – Funeral Music – formerly attributed to J. S. Bach (BWV 53) is one url in the article that goes to a page selling material and not an actual reference work). This is unacceptable promotion of a for profit company, as well as drawing into question the verifiability of the list. Reviewers who are willing to go through and check that cited sources are being represented properly should do so. Ultimately, I am concerned that this expanded version of the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One of the issues with recordings in the field of classical music is that there is a lot of self published material and boot leg recordings of well known literature that aren't notable. The fact that record labels are not included on this list is telling. In general, recordings released on an established record label are notable, but those on pirate labels or small indie labels (usually self published) are not. Contrary to what Peter James is claiming, there is a broad consensus at WP:NOT for information to be curated properly by context and WP:VERIFIABILITY. One of the issues raised on the article's talk page about the items on this expanded list were notability concerns. I share that concern, simply because not all recordings are notable (particularly when they are self published vanity projects with no third party coverage in reliable reference works). I am not convinced that: A. The expanded list adds valuable content. B. That the expanded list is supported by sources that meet wikipedia's standards at WP:Reliable sources C. That WP:SPINOFF applies because the additions by USER:Francis Schonken are either not discriminate or not verifiable. Ultimately, this AFD is asking us to weigh content inclusion, which to my mind isn't the the role of AFD, (i.e. monitoring what gets put on a list). Given the consensus of editors actually watching and editing that article to not use the material being indiscriminately added by Francis Schonken, its my belief that we should defer to that consensus.4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on bootleg recordings. Sometimes notable artists get recorded without their knowledge during live concerts, and then people sell those materials online without the artists themselves being paid. This happens with some frequency in the classical musical world, which is why verifying a recording is on a reputable label is important. We shouldn't' be promoting illegal content.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg recordings probably shouldn't be included but that is not what these are - I checked the most recent that is missing from the main article and it's on a notable label, has an entry in WorldCat which says there are copies held by libraries, and has a review as one of its sources. You have also misunderstood the purpose of the breitkopf.com link - it's the website of a publisher (Breitkopf & Härtel), not just a retailer, and it is not the web page itself that is being cited, but a publication listed on that page ("EB 7053 piano vocal score"). Peter James (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, linking to the publisher's website is at worst self promotional and at best the use of a primary source. If a recording is notable there should be some sort of secondary or tertiary sources not connected to the publisher (who has a financial motive to promote the material it publishes) to verify notability. This is an example of bad referencing decisions. Additionally, the list should add label information since that is standard in discographies on wikipedia. Spot checking one source, does not prove the rest of the list doesn't include a bootleg, and the lack of label information makes it impossible tell without going through and checking every single item. 4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher's website was being used in the lead section, not as a source for a recording. I agree there are problems here with references, such as that one, and I was mistaken here - that citation is claimed to be both the website and the publication mentioned there. The lead section also has primary sources where secondary sources are probably needed. I don't know if that would affect what is included in the list - other discographies, including those that have only been promoted to Wikipedia:Featured lists recently, have only primary sources for some entries. Peter James (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, with respect, then those other lists should not have been promoted to a featured list without addressing those sourcing issues. If I had been a reviewer I would have raised the issues in a review. Wikipedia process is not always consistent at implementing policy everywhere all the time. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not convincing.4meter4 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't about the AfD really, I'll just put a small note about the Breitkopf publication: it appears to be only a score (without critical commentary) so except maybe for the attribution to a particular composer (and we'd rather cite a more suitable source which goes into further detail about this) it's inappropriate; even coming from a reputed musical publisher. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy – talk about off-topic in an AfD discussion. None of these issues provide sound AfD rationale (even if they would be justified, which seems far from the case). Inasmuch as they could be germane they should have been raised on the article's (or the discography's) talk page. Nobody asked to bring such points here in a "if you throw enough mud at the wall something will stick" approach... and then reproach others that you brought them here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was off-topic (talking about a specific source and article content) long ago; as I was pointing out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

merge all documented recordings There is no justification for separating the discography from the article on the work unless the two are very much large rthan this. The main article is where anyone would look, and sending the reader to two places is a little absurd. If this is going to take another RfC, it should be a general one applying to all forms of music. (I'm a little startled checking now how few of the major classical works there are for which we have discographies of any sort at all, and perhaps those who are competent to prepare them would do better to write them, than argue about where to put them. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.