Jump to content

Talk:Beauchamp–Feuillet notation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what does the one-bar courante example describe?

[edit]
  • A woman, facing forward, moves forward, beginning in fifth, left front.
  • the measure includes 3 changes of weight
    • sink (demi-plié) on the left leg, open the right leg to second and rise upon it. (relevé to demi-point)
    • then quickly (in half the time of the last step) move the left foot forward to fourth, flat
    • sink again on the left leg and beat the right foot against the back of the left, place it in fourth behind, and rise upon it
    • then quickly raise the left foot in front and leave it in the air
  • Note that unlike the example from Feuillet, the relation to the music is not indicated.
    • while this is only a one bar example, it fails, in this way, to indicate one of the key features of the notation, as practiced historically.

signed --AJim (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC) (I wrote it all, at different times)[reply]

Hyphenation

[edit]

@Robert.Allen: See MOS:ENBETWEEN. Beauchamp-Feuillet is not a single hyphenated name, but a compound of two people's names. It also doesn't matter how other people choose to format it, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style it adheres to and all of our featured articles follow it. In this case the endash clarifies the relationship between the names since hyphenated names aren't uncommon. Opencooper (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, the Wikipedia did not invent the name, and if the 11 book sources all use the hyphen with no exceptions, then this would seem to be an exception to the guideline. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using an en dash does not make it a different name, it's a typographical difference. Just like me calling you ROBERT wouldn't change your name. And again, we're not following the house style of the publishers of those books. Those books do things we never do on Wikipedia: things like using curly quotes, the ellipses character, spaced emdashes, etc. The thing you should be looking at here is the MoS. Opencooper (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:COMMONNAME is the relevant policy and supersedes MOS for article names. I would hazard a guess that WP:COMMONNAME has a much wider consensus than this particular "between" rule for the use of en-dash. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of consensus for the en-between in article titles, used extensively throughout articles on academia (which very commonly has things named after multiple people) and in articles where multiple localities are parties. Common name is all well and good for the particulars of the name itself, but it's often fallen short when it comes to details like punctuation, subtitle usage, capitalization, etc., where we usually defer to the MoS. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll open a move discussion to see what other editors think. Thanks for your feedback thus far. Opencooper (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think these instances you mention are probably common practice. In this particular case it is not. I think MOS is great as an aid to help editors to conform to common practice, but when the evidence says otherwise, we should rethink the MOS rule. It would be helpful if you provided links to some of the specific examples you mention. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read some more of the examples at MOS:ENBETWEEN. There is an example that uses a hyphen rather than en-dash: "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people". In this article we have a single notation system named after two people, so why doesn't this apply? --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a category for academia and one for multiple localities with pages titles that are compound names. Wilkes-Barre is different because it's a proper names, which that part of the MoS notes. A notation is not an entity. Opencooper (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Beauchamp-Feuillet notation → Beauchamp–Feuillet notation – Per MOS:ENBETWEEN, the surnames of the two people here should be separated by an en dash instead of a regular dash like in a hyphenated name. Please see the above discussion after my move was reverted, which failed to reach consensus. User:Robert.Allen has pointed towards WP:COMMONNAME, but I feel details like typography fall to our own Manual of Style, per MOS:TITLECONFORM. Thank you for your time. Opencooper (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This editor argues that MOS:ENBETWEEN (in this case: "Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound") should prevail over WP:COMMONNAME. The editor has said that capitalization and punctuation are not covered by WP:COMMONNAME, since they do not change the name. This seems incorrect to me. There are numerous examples of Wikipedia article names for which differences in capitalization, spacing, and/or punctuation are seen in sources, and the choice of which variant to choose can be settled by applying WP:COMMONNAME. The editor has said "it also doesn't matter how other people choose to format it, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style." But this is not consistent with the Wikipedia principle of relying on published sources. In a search of Google Books with the exact phrase "beauchamp feuillet notation", the first 18 hits gave the following results:
    • 12 with "Beauchamp-Feuillet notation" (the current article name with a hyphen)
    • 4 with "Beauchamp - Feuillet notation" (a hyphen with surrounding spaces)
    • 2 with "Beauchamp/Feuillet notation" (a slash)
    • 0 with "Beauchamp–Feuillet notation" (the proposed name with an en dash)
  • MOS is usually, but not always, reliable concerning common practice. In my view, since the MOS punctuation rule puts the article name in conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, then the MOS rule should be assessed. This rule may be an instance in which the editors of MOS did not take common practice into account. The rename proposer kindly provided links to examples of other article names of this type which use the en dash (see discussion in the preceding section). I started going through these names alphabetically searching Google Books with exact phrases. (Cases without any book results are omitted.)
  • The results show a marked preference for the hyphenated form, the exceptions being ones with few hits: one with only four hits (2 hyphen, 2 en dash), and the other with only two hits (both en dash). These results may not be surprising, since a popular style manual specifically states: "Chicago's sense of the en dash does not extend to between" (Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, 2010, p. 333, section 6.80). It is not often that a style manual mentions that it rejects a particular rule, but it is not because Chicago says this, that we should also not use this rule, but rather because it is not the practice of the majority of published book sources. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The topic is not the joining of the two independent entities "Beauchamp" and "Feuillet notation" is it? That's what the en dash would communicate. "Beauchamp-Feuillet" is the name of the notation, right? That's what the hyphen tells us. MOS:ENBETWEEN says: "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities". This notation is a single entity. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beauchamp–Feuillet_notation&oldid=1258589887"