Talk:List of compositions by Béla Bartók

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Sz. Number for "Romanian Folk Dances" (1915)[edit]

My own independent research leads me to believe that the Sz. number for the 1915 "Romanian Folk Dances" is 56, not 68. (Its BB. number would be 68.) I suspect that the person who entered this information was momentarily confused by the varying numbering systems for Bartók's work, since the 1917 "Romanian Folk Dances" for small orchestra has an Sz. number of 68 (and a BB. number of 76). Put simply, the author used the BB. number for the 1915 piece instead of the Sz. number, and then used that (incorrect) Sz. number to find the corresponding BB. number. (This is confirmed by the presence on the list of two "Romantic Folk Dances" compositions with an Sz. number of 68 and BB. number of 76.) I have since corrected the 1915 label. --Rckent (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A table with columns better?[edit]

I saw someone entered the list anew, this time by BB catalogue number. It is easy to see where it goes from here: Next is another copy-paste of the whole list, this time by opus number, then another copy-paste by Sz nuymber, then by DD number. Conclusion: isn't a chronologic table handier with columns for Name - year of composition - opus no - DD no - BB no - Sz no - Ensemble type. If there is no objection I will go ahead in a little while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertKennesy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table unclear on lost/destroyed compositions[edit]

I was reading the table and noticed a '*' next to certain compositions. I'm guessing that this means these compositions have been lost/destroyed/suppressed by the composer. Readers should not be forced to guess the authors intent. This needs clearing up Graham1973 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is the table not sortable anymore ?[edit]

The table was sortable until revision 05:01, 25 March 2011 by Bearcat I like it when the table is sortable. I cannot figure out why it is not anymore. comment added by RobertKennesy (talk • contribs) April 3 2011

It seems sortable to me. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]