Talk:Donauwalzer: Difference between revisions
imported>Aleta Curry (→The Blue Danube Waltz, which should be I think: yeppers, but....) |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→The Blue Danube Waltz, which should be I think: reply, second part) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
: Johann ''Baptist''' Strauss. But that is true for the father, too. I understood that titles use the most common form of the name. (And I think that it is enough to give the full name and variations in the lead.) Concerning "II" "(son)", "jr." or "the younger" I do not know what is most usual (I also saw "son"). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | : Johann ''Baptist''' Strauss. But that is true for the father, too. I understood that titles use the most common form of the name. (And I think that it is enough to give the full name and variations in the lead.) Concerning "II" "(son)", "jr." or "the younger" I do not know what is most usual (I also saw "son"). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Yeah, you're right, Peter, but ''Donauwalzer'' wouldn't be the most common form in English; it would be Blue Danube Waltz. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | ::Yeah, you're right, Peter, but ''Donauwalzer'' wouldn't be the most common form in English; it would be Blue Danube Waltz. [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
: (edit conflict) | |||
: Yes, you are right. It probably should be "An der schönen blauen Donau" instead. That was the title under which it was published. I know that there is opposition against using titles as "Donauwalzer", but [[CZ:Translation]] is not really clear about it, and it shows that there has not been much discussion about it yet. I think this should be discussed on a broad basis. I know the argument that "CZ is an English project" and agree, of course. I would fully agree to use English titles whereever possible if it were a printed encyclopedia. But in an online wiki with the option of redirects this is not a convincing argument anymore: | |||
The page is written in English and gives an explanation of a foreign title. Choosing the original title (if it exists) is the only consequent and unambiguous method -- translations often have variations (For instance, is it "Blue Danube" (as in WP), "Blue Danube waltz", or "The Blue Danube Waltz"?)(Yes, languages whose script has to be transcribed are a problem.) By the way, the translation of the long title is "At/by? the beautiful blue Danube". --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 10 January 2010
The Blue Danube Waltz, which should be I think
I think this will need a cluster move, because if memory serves (which is by no means certain) the consensus was to put clusters under the best known English name unless there was exceptional reason not to. In addition, isn't this properly called An der schönen blauen Donau or however one says The Beautiful Blue Danube in German, or am I way off base. We also need to decide where the composer's article goes, I vote Johann Strauss II; he's not usually called Sohn in English. And am I having a brain cramp, but didn't we also call this fellow Johann Sebastian Strauss, or did I completely make that up? Aleta Curry 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Johann Baptist' Strauss. But that is true for the father, too. I understood that titles use the most common form of the name. (And I think that it is enough to give the full name and variations in the lead.) Concerning "II" "(son)", "jr." or "the younger" I do not know what is most usual (I also saw "son"). --Peter Schmitt 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right, Peter, but Donauwalzer wouldn't be the most common form in English; it would be Blue Danube Waltz. Aleta Curry 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Yes, you are right. It probably should be "An der schönen blauen Donau" instead. That was the title under which it was published. I know that there is opposition against using titles as "Donauwalzer", but CZ:Translation is not really clear about it, and it shows that there has not been much discussion about it yet. I think this should be discussed on a broad basis. I know the argument that "CZ is an English project" and agree, of course. I would fully agree to use English titles whereever possible if it were a printed encyclopedia. But in an online wiki with the option of redirects this is not a convincing argument anymore:
The page is written in English and gives an explanation of a foreign title. Choosing the original title (if it exists) is the only consequent and unambiguous method -- translations often have variations (For instance, is it "Blue Danube" (as in WP), "Blue Danube waltz", or "The Blue Danube Waltz"?)(Yes, languages whose script has to be transcribed are a problem.) By the way, the translation of the long title is "At/by? the beautiful blue Danube". --Peter Schmitt 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)