Template talk:Beethoven piano sonatas

I'm pretty sure that this edit is related to the recent apparently mistaken edit of Piano_Sonata_No._24_(Beethoven). I suggest a revert, but I'm going to withhold on this one for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quendus (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. #24 is indeed nicknamed A Thérèse. The Fur Elise connection was perhaps a bit of a leap, but that connection is not implied in the template. DavidRF (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I haven't seen the two sonatas labeled "two easy sonatas" elsewhere and wonder why they are here? Any sources? I don't think either Beethoven himself nor the publisher of these works titled or nicknamed them as such (like, say, the Pastoral) so again: is this a modern convention? Not even their page calls them that (although it does claim-without references-that "some pianists" consider them easy.) Just curious. Thanks122.26.51.187 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whether or not this is conventional wisdom, I don't think it belongs in the template. 78.26 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, sonatas in the template are divided into three main groups: sonatas 1-10, sonatas 11-20, and sonatas 21-32. Since these categories are somewhat arbitrary, I propose dividing the sonatas into time periods (early, middle, and late) according to the division suggested in the article on Beethoven's piano sonatas. In other words, the first section would be labeled 'Early (No. 1-11)' or 'Early sonatas (No. 1-11)' or 'Early period (No. 1-11)' and consist of sonatas 1-11, the second section would be labeled 'Middle (No. 12-27)' and include sonatas 12-27, and the third section would be labeled 'Late (No. 28-32)' and have sonatas 28-32. Any comments? Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid clashing "No." between listed sonatas, they could be shortened to "/n". Example:

Thoughts? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Less visual ambiguity and clutter. intforce (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is an improvement in clarity, and it is a fairly well-established and understood alternative to use "Op. X/Y" for "Op. X No. Y". --94.196.86.102 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should the abbreviation "WoO" be followed by a period? In this template some entries include a period and some don't. --94.196.86.102 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WoO should be followed by a period. WoO is an acronym, not an abbreviation. It seems that the period(s) in this template were inherited from incorrectly named articles, and there are a couple more of that out there (WoO 38, WoO 39), which need to be changed. Further, there are 3 red links in the section "Unnumbered" which I suggest should be removed because they serve no navigational purpose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting to remove the red link entries completely? I suppose that would make sense as there is nothing to navigate to, and they could be re-added in future if articles were written for those works. --94.196.86.102 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also support removing the red links. It is unlikely that articles will ever be created for those minor fragmentary works. intforce (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]