Talk:List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák

message: What exactly do the years in the "year" column represent?  First performance?  Completion?  Written?  Published?  Of course, it would be nice to have all those as separate columns, but if there's only one, we better state what it is. QwertyUSA 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Year?

message: This article should be named something like List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser Number.  This page should have his works listed by category, like the Beethoven works or Mozart works pages.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The violin concerto is listed in a strange way. Sure there are two versions of it, but the piece should only take one line. I had a moment when I thought: are there TWO concertos by Dvorak? Well, no, two versions of one. Please do make this clear in the table: one line. Thanks in advance. 92.107.0.66 (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Would it be appropriate to include information about keys? If so, how should this be done: by extending the titles or by inserting yet another column? Ishboyfay (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keys 

message: This is a list of compositions by Dvořák, not a list of Burghauser's catalogue. Grouping out the lost works makes it much more readable, as any potential reader is usually only interested in the surviving works. intforce (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose – lost works are also works by the composer. This is not a list of "extant works by Antonín Dvořák" --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. I am not proposing deleting the lost works from the table, but merely grouping them into a new section. intforce (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument ("more readable") is completely bogus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my opinion. You are free to refute my argument, but not by simply calling it "bogus". intforce (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Any potential reader who wants the whole list WOULD care about the lost works. If they don't care they would probably care about the rare stuff getting in the way too. So no. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Let's say I'm searching for suitable works for voice and piano to perform. Then obviously I do care about lesser known compositions, but certainly not about material that doesn't actually exist. intforce (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to do that, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. Your argument IS bogus. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of calling my arguments "bogus", I advise you to back up your claim that that is "not what Wikipedia is for" with evidence. I am calling for you and User:Francis Schonken to remain WP:CIVIL. intforce (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTGUIDE is a good start. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point. Using Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference to find existing works by a composer is exactly what it is for. Anyway, I'll stop this argument, since we obviously disagree fundamentally what this list should be about, and I'm tired of arguing against a wall. intforce (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group out lost works