Discusión:Sinfonía en re menor (Bruckner)

As in the other wikipedia languages the name of the page should be moved to "Sinfonía en re menor (Bruckner)". --Meneerke bloem (discusión) 14:15 11 oct 2013 (UTC)

Why? Sinfonía n.º 3 (Bruckner) is also in D minor. Each wikipedia is a separate entity, and we have a policy regarding article titles: WP:CT. GabrielG ¿mensajes? 19:41 11 oct 2013 (UTC)

Herewith the reasons why it was done in the other Wikipedia (English, French, German, Catalan, Italian and Portuguese):

Bruckner never gave this symphony a number, but long after its composition declared that it "gilt nicht" ("doesn't count") and on one copy of the score he put in an empty set symbol (∅). This symbol was later interpreted as a numeral zero. The official name of the smphony is "Symphony in D minor" (German: "Symphonie d-Moll"). "No. 0" or "Die Nullte" (German) are nicknames. See, e.g., Anton Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition or Anton Bruckner's discography. Moreover, "No. 0" is chronologically not correct, because it was composed in 1869 between Symphony No. 1 (1866) and Symphony No. 2 (1872).

NB: The same problem exists also for the "Symphony in F minor", of which "No. 00" is also a nickname (see Anton Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition or Anton Bruckner's discography), based on the false belief that this symphony was composed before the (so-called) "Symphony No. 0". Actually it was composed before Symphony No. 1... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I thus propose to change the name of the page for consistency with Anton Bruckner's Critical Complete Edition, Anton Bruckner's discography and inter-wiki consistency.

Best regards, --Meneerke bloem (discusión) 06:34 12 oct 2013 (UTC)

PS: See also the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, of which I was one ot the main contributors, and the List of works by Anton Bruckner on IMSLP. --Meneerke bloem (discusión) 07:11 12 oct 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, the title on the front page of the Critical Edition is SYMPHONIE D-MOLL „NULLTE“. (See [1]. "Nullte", sensu stricto "zeroth", should be understood as "nullified". --Meneerke bloem (discusión) 09:59 12 oct 2013 (UTC)

Our naming convention asks for the most commonly used name in Spanish. Not necesarily the most correct name, nor the original name, nor the best translation of the original name. This is what I found using Google Books restricted to Spanish language:

• Guía universal de la música clásica, Josep Pascual Triay. «Acerca de las sinfonías conviene saber que, antes de las nueve 'oficiales', existen sinfonías precedentes [...] la conocida como Sinfonía n.° 0 (Die Nulte, 1865)»
• Anton Bruckner, un científico de la música: Eduardo Storni. Gaceta de la Universidad Veracruzana, Julio-Septiembre 2004. «Desde la denominada Sinfonía Cero hasta la Séptima...»
• Satisfacciones imaginarias, Vol 2, Francisco Javier Pérez: «1863 Sinfonía n° 0, en re menor» ... «1869 Revisión de la Sinfonía n° 0.»
• Historia de la música en 6 bloques, Vol 1, Roberto L. Pajares Alonso: «todas las sinfonías, excepto la 0, 5, 6 y 7, son objeto de revisión para hacerlas más aceptables». Historia de la música con imágenes y audiciones, Vol 1, mismo autor.

It's hard to give concrete numbers, but I barely could find any reference to "Sinfonía en re menor" meaning the 0th one, so definitely this is not the "most commonly used name in Spanish".

Remember that every wikipedia has its own set of rules. E.g., we have Canis lupus familiaris while most other wikipedias prefer the vernacular name (en:Dog, de:Haushund). There is no such thing as "inter wiki consistency"; if another wikipedia chooses a certain title we don't *have* *to* follow it (we *can* follow it when appropiate, of course). Apparently, not the case of this article. GabrielG ¿mensajes? 14:19 12 oct 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view. However, please note that what you have found on Internet should be taken cum grano salis. Two of your examples:

• Guía universal de la música clásica, Josep Pascual Triay. «Acerca de las sinfonías conviene saber que, antes de las nueve 'oficiales', existen sinfonías precedentes [...] la conocida como Sinfonía n.° 0 (Die Nulte, 1865)»
• Satisfacciones imaginarias, Vol 2, Francisco Javier Pérez: «1863 Sinfonía n° 0, en re menor» ... «1869 Revisión de la Sinfonía n° 0.»

The "Sinfonia (n° 0) en re menor" was not composed in 1863 and revised in 1869. It is now clear that it was composed in 1869. 1863 is the year of composition of the Symphony in f minor (the so-called "Study symphony" or "Symphony n° 00") - a historical error done by Bruckner's biographs Göllerich and Auer, who called the work "Symphony No. 0", because of the symbol (∅) on the front page and they thought that it was composed before Symphony No. 1.

1865 is not the year of composition of "Die Nulte", but the year during which Bruckner drafted his Symphony No. 1 ... --Meneerke bloem (discusión) 16:32 12 oct 2013 (UTC)