Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emerson7 (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 4 October 2007 (→Canvassing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives
  1. 2006
  2. Jan – Mar 2007
  3. Apr 2007 (incl. Instrumentation)
  4. May – Jul 2007
  5. Jul – mid Sep 2007

Proposal on bio-infoboxes

Template:RFCstyle I propose the following guideline on bio-infoboxes (to be included on the main project page):

Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page.

Please oppose or support. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Opus33 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Reasons given in numerous previous discussions; I can reiterate or link to archived commentary if necessary. Antandrus (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how compatible this is with WP:Bold. Of course, once one of us has quickly reverted it, it needs consensus to reinstall it.--Peter cohen 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The arguments for removals on composer bios hold true here. Your orchestra is your associated act, hmm? Love it...no. I'm not sure how being bold is really relevant here. Moreschi Talk 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In view of the unanimous support for the proposal, I've added the text to the Project page (section 4.8). -- Kleinzach 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hangon!: i'd like to raise objections to your request for comment. two days, and three comments does not a quorum make....particularly with regard to an entire class affecting hundreds of articles. i know very well there are those of you who for one reason or another loathe the infoboxes, but quite frankly, i've have put alot of work into dozens of those conductor articles myself, and i am not at all sanguine about seeing it summarily removed as has been happening lately. indeed, the template requires modification, and that is what should happen. one does not raze a house because the door hinge is broken...one gets a new door! well...let's fix the door. cheers! --emerson7 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure we all appreciate your work on conductor articles. The proposal above has not been archived so to that extent it's still open. However there were four votes above in favour of removing the bio-infoboxes and none against - which would be sufficient to confirm the project guideline. -- Kleinzach 06:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it's not two days, but 17 days. I am prepared to tolerate infoboxes for conductors so long as a template is used that doesn't make Wikipedia look ridiculous ("associated acts" indeed!), so please go ahead and produce one. The other objection to them that I have is that they repeat all the information that is in the article lead right alongside it. They thus add nothing to the article and waste space. --GuillaumeTell 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached a decision on this and I don't see any reason to overturn it. -- Kleinzach 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry, i'm not willing to accept your conclusion. the use infoboxes is an overwhelmingly accepted convention in wikipaedia, and as far as i can tell the only arguments against their use is, 1) the odd/inappropriate field names, which is valid, and i'm more tham willing to see corrected, and 2) they are 'counterproductive' which is purely opinion and unsupportable. --emerson7 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the guideline adopted by the project here for articles related to classical music cannot be changed just because one person objects. Please respect the other participants here and their wishes. -- Kleinzach 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's so... Nurse Ratched-esque. How about this: Four people is not enough to make a guideline. And by "other participants", you mean those... four people?--Wormsie 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Wormsie: You were one of the users canvassed by emerson7 [1]. The message doesn't appear on your page because emerson7 deleted it afterwards. I think you should withdraw from this debate. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry I'm late seeing this. If people are inclined to keep infoboxes (which the relative majority of comment would appear not), I'm with GuillaumeTell in that something like "associated acts" can be removed. The convenience of format, at least for purposes of appearance, to me is the "frame" that it provides for a picture of the artist. Having a bare bones summary like dates and profession would be fine. But I can live with the consensus either way. DJRafe 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking through the conductors' categories to see how many articles have biographical infoboxes. I've found at least 40 boxes in the German and Austrian categories - which suggests the total must be much higher. All of them appear to the work of the same user: emerson7 and many of them have been made recently despite, or inspite of, the decision of 12 September. Some infoboxes were removed, but in each case emerson7 has reverted the articles to the infobox version.
The bio-infobox that is being used is the 'Musical artists' version which is specifically for popular musicians, hence fields such as associated acts etc. The guidelines at the Biography Project actually warn users not to use them for classical music.
This question has been more than exhaustively debated here and on the Composers Project and the Opera Project. I and Antandrus (see above) can provide links. -- Kleinzach 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
has nothing to do with this, here, and now.--emerson7 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the reasons why editors objected to bio-infoboxes on these related projects also apply here. The reasons are the same. -- Kleinzach 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes are very helpful for giving basic information at a glance in the articles, especially in the case of lengthy biographies. Sallyrob 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The above is a canvassed comment (see [2] ).--Folantin 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support We definitely established this guideline for composers. Conductor boxes look pretty dubious too. As GT says, the case for them is not helped by the obvious lack of effort which has gone into their design, especially the ludicrous "Associated acts" category. Hot diggity! It's Tommy Beecham and his Swinging Royal Phillies! Disruptive editing like blatant canvassing isn't a very smart idea either. --Folantin 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not put the effort to fix that instead of crying out how horrible it is? (or to put it another way, Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? I definitely don't want the composer bio-boxes and I'm highly inclined to say the same of the conductor ones. It's up to those who want the latter to fix them. Actually, let's simplify matters: bio-boxes in general tend to lead to disaster. Unless somebody comes up with a highly convincing new version for conductors, I'm going to make my opinion a definite no. --Folantin 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melodia, there have been attempts in the past to redesign these boxes, but in each case they've been a failure and have been rejected by the project concerned. We have discussed the reasons for this failure at some length (I can give you the links if you want). It's unfortunate that many of the box creators are not concerned about accuracy and see their role as that of 'benign trolls' with a licence to provoke other editors into correcting and polishing up their work. -- Kleinzach 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Numerous people have expressed strong doubts about the consensus even on Project Composers. I supported the use of user boxes for composers conductors and musicians. I also question whether any guideline created by this project concerning the use of user boxes is in compliance with Wikipedia wide policy. Consciences about the use of a user box must still be handled on a page by page basis. If users on the Steve Reich page establish consensus for the use of a user box there will members of this project attempt to overrule that decision? I also object strongly to the way this consensus has been formed. Even if a guideline here is useful and Wikipedic a major Wikipedia wide change like this should involve more than the half dozen people present here. This seems very hastily pushed through. --S.dedalus 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The above is a canvassed comment(see [3]) --Folantin 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot discredit my opposition just because emerson7 sent me a message! I do not condone canvassing and I came here of my one volition with my own opinions. Please have the courtesy to Assume good faith and withdraw your rude comment. I consider it an Ad hominem attack. If you examine the Project composer talk page history you will see my opposition to the removal of user boxes extends far before I had ever heard of user emerson7. It seems that there are however members of this community that do not wish a free discussion to take place. --S.dedalus 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To S.dedalus: You are not guilty of canvassing, but you are here as the result of it. You should show your integrity by withdrawing from this debate and striking out your comments. You will be respected if you do this.-- Kleinzach 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once and for all I am not here in any way because of emerson7’s canvassing! I resent the fact that he has put me in this uncomfortable position. Usually I keep very close track of the projects I’m involved in, but in this case I have been distracted for some time by the deletion debate at Shneur Zalman Friedman and didn’t notice this proposal until I recently checked all the project pages last night. However, if you still feel that my comment is for somehow invalidated by that message on my talk page, I will strike it in the interests of Wiki harmony and only say that the objections I raise above will not go away as easily. --S.dedalus 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't mind if wikiprojects decide to against wikiwide use in cases like this. If they would decide to go against WP:NPOV or WP:NFCC or something similar it would be different of course. Admittedly, I was never a big fan of infoboxes anyway. The lead should be a summary of the article, I never saw the point basically of having a summary of the lead as an infobox. The next step is, already done, to summarize info in an infobox by using flags but that's a totally different subject. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- many reasons given previously; can be reposted if it seems close. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

emerson7 has now canvassed at least 13 users to overturn the decision here, sending them a message beginning:

"i know canvassing is kinda tacky, but there is currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians . . . if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. . . ." .

emerson7, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing - specifically this section: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.

-- Kleinzach 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant canvassing like that is a definite no-no. Anybody who turns up as a result should be ignored. --Folantin 07:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you to please Assume good faith and not attempt to minimize the contributions of those innocent users who were targeted by emerson7. To ask for large numbers of users to be ignored is NOT Wikipedic. I will be asking for a thorough review of the preceding here. --S.dedalus 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blame emerson7. I can't ignore the fact he's skewed the debate here. Canvassing is quite clearly against the rules and he knew it. Disruption like this is not on. I'm not sure why this whole stupid infobox issue has re-erupted again. --Folantin 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to discredit someone because they happened to come because of a canvass is ridiculous. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users who have been canvassed have not been discredited - but they should have the integrity not to participate. -- Kleinzach 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skewed the debate? The majority seems to be in your favor now, but you do NOT have a consencus. --S.dedalus 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a nerve complaining about me pointing out that canvassing has being going on, Mr. Dedalus, in the light of this edit of yours from just a few hours ago [4]. --Folantin 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how is pointing out a transclusion on a public talk page supposed to be canvassing? I’m getting tired of your attempts to discredit people. --S.dedalus 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it's not you canvassing it's you complaining about other people canvassing. Understand? You've done what I did here. --Folantin 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transclusion is not canvassing. Notice that I am not objecting to it or calling for other users to be ignored. Also you don’t seem to mind that the above support vote by User:Garion96 was also made by a victim of emerson7’s canvassing. --S.dedalus 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a debate that wasn't going your way, you said of the opposing votes, "I’d like to point out that many votes for this deletion were obtained through the listing of this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism". Oh, and I hadn't even noticed Garion96's comment since I've been too busy answering your messages. But now everybody knows he was canvassed, so there's no problem. --Folantin 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to quote random bits of my resent work on Wikipedia, at least quote the entire thing instead of picking only the section that supports you POV. --S.dedalus 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple things. First, emerson's message was quite friendly, and one of the type I've seen many times on talk pages. Going by the canvassing page it even says how fine a line it is, and reguardless of his own admition, it's hard to say if he crossed it. Second, it's not like people are coming here and vote stacking, they are coming and offering their informed opinions. I can't find it in ANY plausible way fair or sensible that if someone HAPPENS to have been informed 'illegally' that they are therefore banned from any contribution on the topic.
And for the record, the main issue I have with all this is the implication that somehow classical articles are special. Many of the comments seem geared toward things that would ALWAYS be an issue (the flags not existing back then, etc). I certainly support correct info, of course, but as I was saying above, the answer isn't necessarily to get rid of the boxes all together. But the problem is that there's sometimes too fine a line between ownership and consensus, and it's starting to look like the former is seeping in here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To Melodia. In clarification:
  • 1. Classical articles are not special. There is considerable opposition to bio-boxes generally throughout WP, (see for example Biography Project archives).
  • 2. Popular music artist infoboxes in particular should never have been used for classical artists. Emerson7 should have checked the relevant pages before he started his campaign to put boxes on all the conductors.
  • 3. This is not an ownership issue except for the actual box creators who understandably feel bruised by attempts to remove their work. For the non-creators, on both sides of the argument, it's a matter of conviction/opinion. -- Kleinzach 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, his message broke every rule in the book on canvassing:

currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians. in my view, the manner in which the policy was adopted was just a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done. if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. if you would like to loose them...well...just ignore this message. cheers!

We have failure to assume good faith and poisoning the well with suggestions of a cabal and the comment: "a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done" (whatever "skeevishly" means). Of course, he's going to be "quite friendly" - he wants these people to vote his way. "if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes please go [here]]" - blatant soliciting one side of the debate. I'm not sure what his selection procedure was for choosing those names either.
We certainly have a consensus on composer bioboxes (regardless of what happens with conductors) and I'm not sure why this whole debate has been restarted after we went through pages and pages establishing a policy on this matter. --Folantin 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes yes yes, mea culpa.....i'm guilty of canvassing to individuals who were previously involved in this issue previously. i did not know that it was explicitly against wp guidelines, and i have been duly admonished and advised. my arguments are still valid, however, and no supportable argument has yet been made to completely abolish the infoboxes...not one. --emerson7 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Having worked considerably at on Napoleonic articles at WP:MILHIST, I have noticed that virtually every other WikiProject seems to actively encourage userboxes. Even though I loathe the things (eg. stub sized battles - once you've filled in the infobox - date, place, commanders, casualties, strength etc.) you virtually have nothing to say rendering the article useless. However, the infobox is much more useful to read at a glance even though it renders the main text unecessary. This made me realise that the stub sixed classical music articles I've written which only have the composer, date of composition, title of movements, performance length could also be easily incorporated into an infobox like the ones they use for battles.

Eventually I feel WP:CM will have to acknowledge to support for this boxes in the other places of Wikipedia, and I don't think it's a bad thing if we at least consider them, if not making our own userboxes with sensible categories like Principal Orchestras for Conductors or important works for composers. I mean, if we have a WP:CM designed infobox for composers we could have links to their list of works and to their appropiate category right at the top rather than having to search around in the long article.

Compare Cello Sonata (Rachmaninoff) (a stub without infobox) with User:CenturionZ 1/Sandbox#Infobox (a stub with just the infobox). Just consider...is that so bad? Centy – reply• contribs – 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (By the way I'm neutral - I believe there are articles to write not infoboxes)[reply]

Music of Hungary at Wikipedia:Good article review

I've put the following comment on this GA/R

The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta. Haydn was someone, born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary, who worked for the Hungarian House of Esterházy much of his life. Franz Lehár is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Viennese Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then Brahms's Hungarian Dances are the best known example.

I hope people here agree with these points. But does someone have references to quote and want to patch it up?--Peter cohen 10:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the new section added...

Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing.

I disagree with this logic. Why is someone wanting to know what music they are hearing any different than hearing it and wanting to know where they heard it before? Now obviously some pieces are everywhere, and I'm not saying that every little reference should be included in the article (though mention of popular use is a must). I do, though, think that the weight this statement implies is wrong -- is Night on Bald Mountain's use in The Wizard of Oz more important in the later's article that it should be mentioned there but not in the piece's article at all (where it currently is, granted a bit out of place)? I'm not so sure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the guideline which I believe is in line with WP policy on discouraging trivia sections. -- Kleinzach 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melodia is logically correct, but I think she's not taking into account the likely feelings of our readers. Classical music listeners often have strong emotional attachments to particular works, bordering on veneration. For such listeners, hearing that a favorite work has been trivially adapted for a videogame is uninformative, even irritating. So, let's not pester the classical fans by including uninformative, irritating stuff in the articles they are most likely to read. In contrast, videogames etc. are typically a more light-hearted and recreational experience, one which we can enhance by identifying the background music in the pop culture articles. Cheers, Opus33 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I've requested a peer review of Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff). If anyone has spare time, I'd like comments on how to improve this article at its peer review page. ALTON .ıl 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff in my sandbox, User:Alton/Work. Please improve it if you can, and offer suggestions on either talk page. The current list is missing many entire compositions, and isn't comprehensive enough. I will be replacing the extant page with the new version if there are no objections. ALTON .ıl 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the look-and-feel of the old list, with the wikilinks and subsections. DavidRF 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am not going to submit it without any links in the text, and the thing is still a work in progress. The problem with 'by opus number' is that there are so many works that don't have one, so they have to be dumped in a section at the bottom sorted by date anyways. Chronologically, the opus numbers are somewhat preserved, and pieces without them aren't put somewhere less significant.
Ultimately, I think two sections serve the purpose—chronological, and by class, since he wrote in a wide range of formats, from operas to chamber music. ALTON .ıl 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragmentary works in Templates

I've been looking at many of the list-of-works templates and I'm seeing a number of "fragmentary" works showing up on the lists. I don't want to see these fragmentary works getting "top billing" in the templates. For symphonies, I'm taking about Beethoven's 10th, Sibelius's 8th, Tchaikovsky's E flat symphony, Elgar's 3rd and Schubert's 7th and 10th. I'm not talking about Schubert's 8th where the symphony is famously "Unfinished" and ends after two movements because those two movements are each polished and complete in themselves and the two-movement work has been part of the standard repertoire for years. I'm talking about works that only exist in fragmentary sketches. Its just not right looking at a list of Beethoven symphonies and seeing the numbers go up to 10. And its terribly confusing seeing the Schubert symphonies template and seeing two symphonies on the list that are much less finished than the "Unfinished symphony" with no indication of their "sketch"-iness.

I realize the fragmentary works need articles at least as much as the completed works so that the story of why they were never completed can be told, but is there some way they can be given a less prominent position in the templates? Like listed on the bottom line in a smaller font or something? DavidRF 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wonder what you mean by top billing? Do you mean they have 'unfinished' next to them which makes them stand out? Basically we have to clearly indicate the work is fragmentary, but I don't see how that makes it stand out. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By top billing I meant that they really shouldn't be in the same list. If Beethoven's 10th gets a link at the bottom in small print, fine, but I don't like it being on the main list. The main list should go from 1 to 9. Maybe they could be added list at the very bottom after the list of works (similar to where the 'arrangment' is on the Beethoven String Quartets template). My opinion is that these fragmentary works might be interesting footnotes, but they shouldn't be in the main section. DavidRF 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Beethoven symphonies - how's that?. Also it appears they've fixed the line break bug with the Navbox template meaning we do not need to put everything in a nowrap template anymore. I'm too lazy to remove all these from all the templates (they do no harm) until I have to. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that looks OK. I'll see how it looks on some of the others I mentioned. DavidRF 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're way ahead of me as usual. Thanks. DavidRF 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little worried about moving Schubert's 7th out of the list though - it upsets the pattern if one just is missing - just like the Michael Haydn 25th still appears in the navbox even though it's not by him. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Schubert case is indeed interesting, but if you buy a Schubert symphony cycle, you'll get 1-6,8-9. The gap in the sequence is always there and its mentioned in the liner notes. As for the Michael Haydn, #25 is composed by MHaydn. Mozart only wrote the slow introduction to the first movement. It was misclassified as Mozart-37 for many years (also why it is now common to see it omitted in Mozart symphony cyles). I talked to the main Michael Haydn editor, User:Anton Mravcek, about what that article should be called and he said "Maybe it's my POV talking, but I think it would benefit Michael Haydn's promoters to embrace Mozart's contribution instead of trying too hard to prove Haydn's individuality.". I'll try to figure out a way to put #37 down on the bottom of the Mozart template as well. DavidRF 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! I've just read that a one of the piano sonatas by Schubert are also incomplete (D. 613). What do we do there? Centy – reply• contribs – 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on Klempf's Box Set of Schubert Sonatas, No. 2 is listed as incomplete, No. 11 is a 'fragment' and Nos. 3, 8, 10, 12 are just missing. However on Stephen Hough's CD, he included No. 10. When do we decide a piece is unfinished like Schubert's 8th symphony or unfinished like his 7th symphony? Centy – reply• contribs – 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave the Schubert piano sonatas alone. It may seem contradictory, but there's no harm there. His sonatas are much more known by their D-numbers and the famous ones are all at the end. DavidRF 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank to DavidRF for noticing this problem and to Centy for responding. The prominence given to "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony" has always bothered me, too. Opus33 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions for Chopin Nocturnes

If we start to expand and create articles for the Chopin nocturnes, how should we name the articles. Currently, our guidelines say we should name them eg Nocturne No. 11 (Chopin). But no one really refers to the Nocturnes like that. It's usually key (which is ambiguous ) or opus number. I know we've reached a consensus that the Ballades and Impromptus for example should be numbered, but should we also do that for the Nocturnes? Centy – reply• contribs – 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO by opus number, like Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 (Chopin). You're right as they tend not to be numbered. Guidelines are just that, not set in stone, and a bit of overriding for the sake of general practice common sense can easilhy be used. A shame they aren't all in different keys...though I do doubt the ability of each one to have enough for an article anyway. Hmmm...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it would be best to do articles only on the entire opus, meaning Nocturnes Op. 9 (Chopin). Usually the information about a piece's history comes as a history of the opus as a whole, and the only thing that differs is the content or performance technique. I don't know though, there might be a lot of material for nocturnes. ALTON .ıl 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made the {{Template:Chopin nocturnes}} which should guide people as how to name the articles. Annoyingly, the two Chopin nocturnes that have no opus number also share their key signatures and U've yet to come up with a satisfactory working article title (the one I've used is VERY cumbersome). Centy – reply• contribs – 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested for comment: Separate heading for instrumentation sections?

I'm requesting comments on whether articles about orchestral pieces of music should have a separate heading for the paragraph listing the instrumentation or not. One example of each: Symphony No. 39 (Haydn) and Symphony No. 39 (Michael Haydn). Jindřichův Smith 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should labeled "Instrumentation". Justin Tokke 20:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. In a short article, you shouldn't use section headings, which would be distracting to the reader. A longer article benefits from being divided into sections. I think the two cases you cite would do better without the headings.
We actually already have a policy on this, which says pretty much what I just said. You can find it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music#Specifying_the_musical_forces_used_in_a_work Opus33 21:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also the lengthy discussion, which just moved to archive. David Brooks 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have AutoWikiBrowser?

I was wondering if anyone had this, because it would be useful if someone in the WikiProject had this tool. Then when a tedious job needs doing - such as correcting template renamings or tedious bits of formatting - we could just ask the guy with AWB to do it instead of a bot. Centy – reply• contribs – 10:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Moreschi Talk 14:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I use User:Moreschi(AWB) for AWB work, and not my main account. Moreschi Talk 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chopin études -- use of nicknames

Looks like I got into a minor edit war here. (Reverted change was re-reverted). I thought I would pose the question to the larger group. I thought the presence of nicknames on the template was helpful and helped readers distinguish between them. User:Lividore doesn't like them and says there is evidence that Chopin himself didn't like them either. Any ideas on how to settle this dispute? DavidRF 17:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether I like those nicknames or not. Chopin didn't even know about them as they were given after his death. Furthermore, there is hard evidence that Chopin was against programmatic music, and believed that a certain composition might remind different people of different things. Therefore, I find the ample use of nicknames to describe Chopin's music completely inappropriate. I agree with DavidRF's point that there should be a means to help distinguish between them, and found the replacement of nicknames with keys an effective and harmless solution. --Lividore 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my phrasing. I didn't mean to imply anything other than an editorial choice when I said you didn't like them. Anyhow, classical music is filled with lots of nicknames that were popularized after the composer's death. What do the main Chopin editors ( User:Alton, etc.) think? DavidRF 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chopin's own opinion shouldn't really matter here. They are appropriate as they are given /everywhere/. Almost everyone calls it the "Revolutionary Etude", so what is Chopin wouldn't have approved? Would you say the same on Template:Beethoven piano sonatas? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lividore, it's a navigational box. Do you know what they're for? To help people navigate. And when most budding pianists know the Black Key etude but stand little chance in being able to name the Opus AND Key, why are we removing the nicknames? We need those nicknames to help people who don't quite understand how the Opus numbering works to find the right etude.
The simple fact of the matter is we need those nicknames to help people find the etude they are looking for. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You are replacing the nicknames with the key signature. That's even less useful than having just the numbers because some etudes share the key signature eg. the Revolutionary Etude Op. 10, No. 12 and the Ocean Etude Op. 25, No. 12. Now that's just going to confuse people even more when they're looking for Etude No. 12 in C minor. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I (unilaterally, as people like that word) removed all the nicknames from the article Études (Chopin) without making waves (diff) due to a request here. While I agree that it is not as accurate or scholarly if we include these names, it is, as Centy says, a navigation box. Is it a compromise to suggest having only the 'famously' named ones (Revolutionary, Ocean, Black Key, Winter Wind, and possible Op. 10/3) and removing the rest? ALTON .ıl 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we open the can of worms over what is a 'famous' nickname and what isn't. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be too hard to find some sources, and see what they use. For instance, the De Capo Catalog of Classical Music Compositions (a FANTASTIC and quite comprehensive guide to 132 composers' works, albeit a bit skewed on just who at times), lists the following: Tristesse/L'Intimite, Torrent, Black Keys, Toccata, Revolutionary/Fall of Warsaw, Aeolin Harp/Shepherd Boy, Baim, Cartwheel, Butterfly, Winter Wind, and Ocean. No idea if that's all of them, as I know it's missing nicknames in a few places throughout the book, (and on the flip side, lists names for most of the Preludes, which I've never otherwise seen). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those were pretty much what I had in mind, but yeah, it might be questioned by other editors why one nickname is not in there, etc. Given that the études are not a hugely popular traffic area, I would not feel uncomfortable removing all of them, and I wouldn't mind if we kept just a few. I don't really have a useful opinion... ALTON .ıl 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge

The Philharmonic Society of London (later the Royal Philharmonic Society) originally commissioned the symphony in 1817. Beethoven supposedly started work on his last symphony in 1818 and finished it early in 1824. This was roughly twelve years after his eighth symphony. However, Beethoven started working on this piece much earlier. Beethoven wanted to set the Ode an die Freude to music as early as 1793. He did that as a piece, but unfortunately that piece has been lost forever. - Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). I think this can and should be expanded into an article - perhaps Ode to Joy (lost work) or something along those lines. Raul654 06:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raul, this is an interesting challenge but I'm puzzled you're focusing on just this particular aspect of the Ninth Symphony. The existing article Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) cites very few reference sources, has very few in-line references, makes many subjective claims about Romanticism without any supporting citations, quotes the notoriously unreliable Schindler without warning the reader that he's unreliable, and has a totally garbled explanation of "ritmo di tre battute". In sum, I see this as a troubled article that really needs some TLC. I applaud your call for some new work on the Ninth Symphony, but we should spend our efforts getting the basic article into acceptable shape before moving on to peripheral matters like Ode to Joy (lost work). Yours sincerely, Opus33 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMG

There's a huge database of classical music at AMG. It has a program notes style text for virtually all the classical music articles we have on Wikipedia and lots we don't have. Given the huge number of stub articles we have which only contain details of the composition year and movements, we can expand these articles using the site. Of course, we'd have to rewrite the text, remove unreferenced subjective commentary etc. but it only taken 10 or so minutes to make a decent article from the information they have. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Centy, I would like to politely disagree with your suggestion, and offer an alternative.
I took a look at AMG, and it seems to be just not a serious reference source--it's written by amateurs just like us, not by professional music experts. In fact, in some ways, we're better than AMG. We at least cite our reference sources some of the time, and it appears that AMG never does. I looked at the AMG article on Beethoven, and it had a totally bogus picture (based on Jaeger's posthumous, 1831 bogus picture), and at least one serious falsehood (that Beethoven moved the piano sonata into the concert hall).
Look, it's not that hard to get genuine, quality sources for classical music. If you have a university internet connection, you can use the online New Grove. You can also look at User:Antandrus's excellent sources page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/sources. Further afield, virtually any public library has good books about classical music. If you find one that is reasonably recent and which cites its own reference sources, you'll have what is almost certainly a better basis for contributing to Wikipedia than any amateur-run website like AMG could be. Yours truly, Opus33 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Jesu

Not my neck of the woods, but I did a sorting-out operation on this article some time ago, for reasons that I can't remember, and a smaller one just now. To me, it's a movement in Fauré's Requiem, but for practically everyone else it seems to be a "song" composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber (or not composed by anyone in particular). What I'd really like to see is much more on the settings by the composers listed at the top - maybe a paragraph on each - and any other general information about it, like how it came to be a separate movement or whatever. I'm not the person to write this, but maybe there's someone here who is (it does have the WP:CM banner on the Talk page). --GuillaumeTell 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Fully agree, but why not delete the entire category Category:Lists of pieces by composer and merge it with the category Category: Compositions by composer which seems to cover the identical area? --Classickol 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Sung

Hi there. There's a new article about Hugh Sung, who seems to be a notable pianist. There are a number of issues with the article, the main one right now is that it's been written autobiographically. However, a couple of us have discussed those issues with him, and he understands the WP:COI issues, and has agreed not to edit the article but provide information and discussion on the talk page. As you fine people in this project know more about such things than I, and you seem to have some great style guidelines, I would like to invite you to participate in getting this article up to appropriate Wikipedia standards. Thanks — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 19:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the problems seem to have been resolved, so there's not much more to do than make sure the banner is on the talk page. ALTON .ıl 07:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More recordings coming (maybe)

Just found out about http://www.musopen.com/ today. Their goal and our goal are the same - to provide free, full length music for others to re-use. They have a fair number of classical music recordings. The site strongly implies those recordings are in the public domain (both the work itself and the performance). I've emailed them to confirm, and I expect them to say yes. If they do, I'll be uploading them. As with my previous message here (See above: Need Help!), I will need some assistance in incorporating these. Raul654 16:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that a four comment (3-1) "discussion" deleted its article. ALTON .ıl 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way back in December 2005, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I do remember actually seeing the page; there was a more recent deletion last December (...) ALTON .ıl 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion log shows a speedy deletion then. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes. Point is "Pity it was deleted." ALTON .ıl 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Oh gosh, why do I get so ornery? I apologize for those caustic remarks. You're right, it was a long time ago and irrelevant. I personally like the project, and I simply regret that there's no page on it. ALTON .ıl 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music&oldid=162137084"