Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Classical music: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:30, 24 October 2014 editSurreyJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users811 edits →A totally unacceptable proposal← Previous edit Revision as of 17:53, 24 October 2014 edit undoStfg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,656 edits →Uses in popular culture (revision 2): rNext edit →
Line 164: Line 164:
]<br/> ]<br/>
I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the ] page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the ] page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

:My comment about "as good as we're going to get" didn't mean the best conceivable, but the best I feel able to hope for in practice, given the way the discussion is shaping up. Read my comment again. You're driving me, for one, away, with shouty capitals, accusing a major project contributor of filibustering, telling us what sort of comments you expect from us ("At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable.") and wikilawyering about policies and guidelines.

:Insofar as some people have said some things that other people have agreed with, obviously there's a measure of agreement, but I don't yet see anything close to a consensus for how to update the section. If you think otherwise, you could always have another go at formulating an amendment that would capture that agreement without overriding other editors' views. At the moment, I personally don't see what it would look like. I can assure you, though, that anything in the direction of stating bald facts about symphonies and things being quoted in TV commercials would get an oppose from me. I was interested when you first raised this, because I see that the way music is used is a significant part of the history of music (as I said back then), but those things are trite and undue weight for a discussion of a major work of music. OK in an article about marketing or in one about brown bread, but not about the symphony. {{nobreak| Popular ≠ significant.}}

:WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC aren't the only story in town. We're here to discuss what does and does not contribute to making a good article specifically about music. While we shouldn't violate policies and wikipedia-wide guidelines, we can and should add to them what needs to be said about specialist areas. --] (]) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


===A totally unacceptable proposal=== ===A totally unacceptable proposal===

Revision as of 17:53, 24 October 2014

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

In popular culture sections in guideline

User:SurreyJohn has raised the issue of "In Popular Culture" as they are treated in our guidelines. He raised the issue on the Guidelines subpage of he project talkpage, a subpage which has very few watchers. So I am copying the comments here for further discussion:


Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!

I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SurreyJohn, pages like this get very few watchers. I suggest you raise the issue at the project's main talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) This section is simply a adaptation of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. If the use of a composition is notable, i.e. the use has been discussed in reliable sources, it will usually be included in the composition's article. For mere occurrences, the special page "WhatLinksHere" is a rich source of information, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Adagio for Strings. For other works, the use in popular culture is of such volume that a special article has been created: Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture, Category:Music in popular culture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
(MB)
This has no connection with the Trivia guideline. Why should music being used in films, adverts, etc be discouraged or treated as trivia? This section is misleading. Another example is Bach’s Air on the G String. This text suggests one should write an article on Hamlet Cigars and add the reference to the music there, which is nonsense! At least in practice, it seems that popular culture (and other) sections do include the use of music in film and TV (so this section of the guidance is being ignored). Air on a G string has a large section on popular culture, and rightly so, and likewise O Fortuna. I can detect the bread in Dvorak’s New World too! Again I say such subject matter should be encouraged, not discouraged. SurreyJohn (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with SurreyJohn. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've often felt that WP's guideline against "popular culture" (a phrase I dislike) must be a hold-over from academic papers (which discourage such things). The question of whether to include them is subjective, and that contradicts much of what WP is about. That some music is used "in popular culture" is a fact; people should not be the ones to decide whether it's "worthy", just to document it. -- kosboot (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Some articles would get very long if all appearances in "popular culture" would be mentioned, thinking of BWV 147 with its famous chorale. An extra article, that might help at times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
... which massively raises WP:UNDUE. As for "just documenting it": therein lies the rub – ordinarily, no citation showing the significance of a composition's popular use is provided, not even a source for its use; see WP:BURDEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I like both Gerda's and Michael's points - that is, when possible or practical, I favor a separate article documenting "popular" uses, rather than incorporating it into the work's main article. (I'm sure uses of "O Fortuna" would overwhelm everything ever written on Carmina Burana - and in fact, a lot of film music studies discuss the use of "O Fortuna" in films.) Maybe such things should be made into lists rather than articles (just a thought). -- kosboot (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with putting pop culture items into separate linked articles, for the reasons Gerda, Michael, and Kosboot give. I also like Michael's implicit suggestion of accepting such additions only if they have a cited reference source; I suspect many such contributions are based only on the unreliable memories of the contributors.
It might be worthwhile to mention events here on WP from about 2007. At the time, we had a nice system going in which many articles (not just classical music) had their satellite articles of the form "X in popular culture". This let the pop culture enthusiasts contribute all that they felt like, while still respecting WP:UNDUE within the main articles. Sadly, a misguided group of editors went on a warpath, using the AfD process to remove essentially every "X in popular culture" article from WP. I hope this doesn't happen again. Opus33 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with SurreyJohn too. How music was and is used, when and by whom, is a significant aspect of music history (see Taruskin's History of Western Music for lots of exploration of this). Whether to split out something like Jesu Joy or to keep it with the containing work is a less important matter, depending mostly on whether there's enough to sustain the separate article. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Would a citation from IMDB (in their "soundtracks" section) be a minimally acceptable source citation documenting uses in popular culture? This discussion is almost asking for developing some acceptable-use guidelines. -- kosboot (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The mere presence of a composition in a film is not the issue; whether it's important enough to be discussed in reliable sources is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Ay, there's the rub. Off the top of my head, I'd say such uses in popular culture are rarely important enough to be discussed in reliable sources (Unless you consider IMDB a reliable source). At least from my point of view, I recognize that people who edit Misplaced Pages have a very strong desire to create such lists. To my thinking it is more productive (from WP's and the users' point of view) to steer them into a constructive direction, rather than forbidding such lists. In such cases, if one thinks of the citation to a reliable source not as a prerequisite, but as something to eventually capture, then the existence of "in popular culture lists" is not such a problem and can satisfy the many who want to create such things. -- kosboot (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
What is happening here now? There seems to be good agreement that change are needed as the guideline does not match common practice and popular culture is part of the music's history. I would agree any content should be notable and referable (as according to WP guidelines), and not simply a long list of minor appearances in films. Size doesn't matter (e.g Beethoven's 5th), but as the title Uses in popular culture implies (see link), any inclusions should be of popular (i.e. significant) uses of the music. This is not simply about films. It will includes TV commercials, wedding and funeral marches, songs, and other uses where classical pieces have been reused. Therefore I do not see this guideline being applicable to genre of soundtracks, and videogames which are compositions in their own right.
Shall I go ahead and propose some changes, or is is better one of the project team does it? It appears to have been stuck on the end of the page (after References) as an afterthought, so perhaps the whole section should be simply deleted, or otherwise placed in a better order and position.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If Misplaced Pages is really an encyclopedia, and not a dump for data and facts, then any 'trivia' would be integrated as prose within an article, not a miscellaneous list towards the end. Although the 'trivia/references to' situation is quite bad with some articles; it is only restraint that prevents it overwhelming articles. It's worth thinking what a reputable print encyclopedia might have done. Unless (say) there is a reference to Bolero being used notably in a film/computer game/literature etc in a reliable source article/book about Ravel then it doesn't belong in the Misplaced Pages Bolero page, although it could of course be mentioned on the page about the film/computer game etc. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply: WP is better than a print encyclopedia, so inevitably it does have a lot more data and facts. Anyway, I would like to get the guideline changed as modern use of music is not trivia, should no be called such, and should not be removed. Also, we should be working to WP guidelines and not inventing our own. Sources should not restricted to composer textbooks, and WP:NPOV states that you should not try to exclude sources because they do not conform to your point of view. The "modern use" content is largely already in articles, so I just want to see the guideline updated to align with common practice.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree on all points. On your earlier question, SurreyJohn, imo it would be great if you were to go ahead and propose some changes. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Stfg. I will put a draft here by end of week.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 21:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok; here's the proposal (original and revised versions): I've tried to take all points on board. However, I've deliberately omitted guidance on style (such as splitting a large list into a separate article) or restating guidance notes, as this is general guidance applicable to any article or section.

Uses in popular culture (original)

Often articles about works of classical music are sometimes edited along the following lines:

Work X was used in Y.

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. Except in extraordinary circumstances, contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done. See also: Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections.

Uses in popular culture (revised)

Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a film, TV commercial, song, etc., then its use should be described. This could be under a "Uses in Popular Culture" header, or something more specific such as "Use in Films". Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.

The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial. Where an article about the subject (e.g. film) already exists, a link should be made to the article, and that article should also include a link back to the music's article (i.e. both articles are cross-referenced).

A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses whilst keeping a neutral point of view: If the music is mentioned in an article being references, or it is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use is poorly referenced and the subject (e.g. film) has no atricle is will likely be removed.

Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described under other headers.

Hopefully, the revised section can be accepted, but if not then the offending section should simply be removed.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 09:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while! Please could those who have contributed to the discussion (i.e. Voceditenore, Michael Bednarek, Ravpapa, Kosboot, Gerda Arendt, Cg2p0B0u8m, Stfg, or anyone else) give a brief acceptance or otherwise, before these changes are made. Whilst I agree on many of the above points I don't think they belong in this guidance. Trivia, writing style, references, splitting large topics into separate documents (eg. lists of works) are all dealt with under general guidance so need not be restated here. Instead, this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance. Thanks.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SurreyJohn, for your well-meant efforts. I suggest that the discussion we've had so far might be better reflected by something lik this:

Classical music often gets reused in popular culture. References to such uses, however, should be made with caution, since, especially when they refer to material that is in the public eye for only a limited period, they are likely to violate WP:UNDUE. In addition, such references must follow Misplaced Pages guidelines in general, as follows:

  • They must be supported by a legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly reference source.
  • To avoid violations of WP:UNDUE, the source should be about the work of classical music, not about the item of popular culture.

Finally, if such references pile up and threaten to upset the overall a balance of the article, they should be separated into a linked satellite entitled "X in popular culture".

Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that Opus33's suggestion really points up just how far we are from agreement on this issue. While I appreciate the spirit of his suggestion, I disagree with just about every one of the proscriptions he suggests.
For example, Mozart's piano concerto No. 21 is best known in this world as "The Elvira Madigan Concerto." I have never seen this discussed in any peer-reviewed scholarly reference source, but to ignore this fact would certainly be doing a huge disservice to our readers. The slow movement of Chopin's piano sonata number 2 has become emblematic of funerals. To list the number of times this piece has been used in film and TV would be laborious, indeed, but that the article completely ignores this fact is a kind of tyranny of cultural snobbery that is unacceptable.
The problem, in my eyes, is this insistence on calling these uses of classical works in other contexts "in popular culture". Why do we distinguish between its uses in "popular culture" and uses in other contexts? For example, is Ariel Dorfman's play Death and the Maiden (play) popular culture? Or is it high culture, and thus worthy of inclusion? What about the movie version of the play? Is the extraordinary rendition of Mozart's Symphony number 40 by Arab classical (popular?) singer Fairuz popular culture or high culture?
An article on a piece of classical music should certainly discuss the influence of that piece, including adaptation of the piece to other works or contexts. There is no reason that we should be excluding such adaptations just because the work to which the piece is adapted is liked by a whole lot of people. We are not arbiters of taste, we are encyclopedists. Who are we to say that a poem by Mark Doty is more worthy of inclusion in the article on the Grosse Fuge than a novel by Kim Stanley Robinson?
The key to what instances of adaptation to include is, in my eyes, one of significance. Before I started working on the article on the Grosse Fuge, I had heard of neither Doty nor Robinson; nonetheless, in the end, I included the reference to Doty, and deleted the reference to Robinson. Because I felt that the reference to Doty's poem added something substantive to the understanding of the fugue in our culture, popular or otherwise, while the reference to Robinson was mostly incidental.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the whole rubric "in popular culture" is a misnomer. We should be looking at significance, not at categories. If a piece's use in a Walt Disney film offers some insight into the piece's significance, then we should include it, regardless of how much we despise Walt Disney's films. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Elvira Madigan? I thought it was the "theme of Love Story" concerto...
It's all about references from reliable independent sources, not about which way the link goes (or both). Cross-links should not be imposed, that should be left to editor discretion.
The only other thing is to find ways of presentation that keeps it a bit in balance:
  • Here's how it is more or less contained: Salome#Songs (discard the bullets and the overview takes only one paragraph)
  • Here's going completely out of hand: Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions (entire scene descriptions when the music is used - just say its extremely popular background music, used uncountable times and name a few films that do so in a non-bulletted list, that should suffise)
--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ravpapa's observation that we are far from agreement on this issue. The "revised proposal" doesn't follow fundamental principles for section headings (sentence case). It wrongly emphasises "significant prominence in a film …" and "cross reference", where the emphasis should be on significant coverage in reliable media and wider understanding of the composition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday I happened to see Mozart K. 467 (performed by the Met Orchestra and Maurizio Pollini) and the program note said something like "thank goodness the association with Elvira Madigan is fading." I agree that the heading "in popular culture" may not be the best description. I have seen the heading "Other uses" used. Perhaps something like "In other contexts" might be good? Additionally, I think the nature of these sections is one where there is often very little (if anything) written on these other contexts. Can one really find sources for all the instances where (for example) the Pachelbel Canon has been used in numerous tv commercials? kosboot (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If I could reply specifically to Ravpapa: I think all of this hinges on ephemerality. (This is why my draft includes the words "when they refer to material that is in the public eye for only a limited period, they are likely to violate WP:UNDUE"). Mozart's The Magic Flute was written partly for a popular audience and might plausibly have been considered popular culture -- as of 1791. The fact that its fame did not fade and that listeners have treasured it for 200 years gives us plenty of license to include major coverage in WP. Ravpapa sensibly mentions some works that make reference to classical music and (exceptionally) have good prospects of having some kind of cultural permanence. I'm quite comfortable with including references to such works in WP. And I suspect that such works are also the most likely to be supportable with scholarly reference sources. Opus33 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, maybe we are closer to agreement than I thought. Ephemerality is a good criterion. On the other hand, look at the case of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions cited above. The fact is that the Gymnopedies are one of the most popular pieces of background music ever written by a classical composer, and that in itself justifies mention - especially since background music is precisely what Satie had in mind when he wrote the piece. On the other hand, the entire laundry list of examples should probably be moved to a separate article, as Surrey John has suggested. The truth is, I find these lists interesting, and Misplaced Pages is really the only place where such lists are compiled, so I would hate to see them disappear altogether. But in the main article, a couple of examples would surely suffice. I mean, there has to be some point, and a here-today-gone-tomorrow use of a piece usually does not have any point. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re. "especially since background music is precisely what Satie had in mind when he wrote the piece" — popular misconception, but no. First, Gymnopédies is three pieces (not one), and Satie's intentions when he wrote them were quite far from those that got him to compose furniture music some twenty years later.
This shows that the elaborate "trivia list"-like treatment of reception history turns the focus away from what the article is about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As counterexample of the "overdeveloped" and "somewhat right" examples I gave above, here's one I consider underdeveloped:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I personally prefer Cultural references for the title of these sections. It avoids making distinctions between "high" and "low" (popular) culture. Firstly, the distinction is very blurry. Second and more importantly, the significance of a particular piece of classical music in so-called popular culture has often been widely discussed in books and journals and even been the subject of doctoral dissertations. As such, it definitely belongs in the article about the music. Two examples which spring to mind are the uses of the William Tell Overture and Cavalleria rusticana. However, in my view, such cultural references should only be added to the article about the music if the significance of that use has been documented in reliable (and preferably scholarly) sources. The mere mention of it in the soundtrack section of IMDB is not sufficient. Soundtracks are chosen for all kinds of reasons. If the WP article about the pop culture item mentions that a particular piece of music was used, covered, adapted, etc., it should link to the music article. However, there is no need to link back to the pop culture article from the music article if the use cannot be documented as particularly significant. And a general hint about guidelines... Ones that are too wordy and try to cover all the bases and every conceivable outlying case are counterproductive. Keep it short and simple and just add the caveat that like all guidelines, it should be treated with common sense. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture (revision 2)

Although grateful for the contribution to the discussion, I’m afraid I too disagree with almost all of Opus33’s suggestions, and agree with Ravpapa. These music articles are about all aspects of a musical piece, not just its composition. Use in popular culture should not be excluded, deleted or hived off into another article (unless they overwhelm the core article). Demanding peer-reviewed sources (and Ephemerality) still seems to be being suggested as a tool to prevent content that some find uninteresting appearing in 'their articles'. I hope this is not the case. We should all keep a neutral point of view, and not try to bias sources to support our own views (see WP:NPOV#Bias in sources).
Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 is a great example of the impact its use in a film has had. Over the past 6 years, the Andante has had over 30 million views in YouTube. The second most popular Mozart piano piece (half as many views) is Fur Elise, yet a large section has been removed from its article. The greatest Mozart "hit" here is a Rap with over 60 million views – a massive count by any standard and all three certainly justify inclusion in popular culture articles.

  • There has been discussion on what this section should be titled: "In Popular Culture" is a generic title used throughout Misplaced Pages, and although I’m not keen on the title, I believe common layout and titles are preferable to a hotchpotch of different articles. To differentiate between High and Low culture is also likely highly controversial. "Cultural References" may be better in some cases, but I suggest we leave this out of the guideline for now, so the final decision can be left to editor discretion.
  • Ephemerality requires us to predict the future, and is highly subjective. Clearly we don’t have to wait 200 years (for Magic Flute), or even 1 year to record the use of music. Montagues and Capulets (Dance of the Knights) is currently the stirring opening theme of UK’s "The Apprentice". As a prime-time TV program, this music will now be in many a persons mind, and already in the article!
  • Francis Schonken@: Love story was composed by Francis Lai. Cross-linking is good practice, but I talk you point about not making this too wordy, so agree it may be better not included. Keep it simple!
  • Michael Bednarek@: I hope I've taken on board your comments too. I am suggesting the music should have significant prominence in work where it appears, not just films. Classical music may be used in a film/soundtrack, play, TV commercial, Video Game, wedding and funeral march, in space, a French resistance warning, and much more.
  • WP in an encyclopedia, not a text book: Important or significant uses should be recorded here (not hidden elsewhere). It should be possible for a person to read the article as an encyclopedia to determine where they thought they heard a piece of music, etc.
  • There have been numerous examples listed above of popular culture uses, all justified, and all with content included in their articles. Any new guidance should be written in such a way that ALL these examples comply with the new guideline.

There are two aspects to including an item on popular culture. First the mere fact that "X was used in Y", and then the impact of that fact in making a piece popular.

  1. A piece of music being used in a film, play, TV advert, videogame, etc, is a statement of fact, not a point of view. This fact is likely to be common knowledge, so only if likely to be challenged, should is actually require a citation (see WP:V).
  2. The impact of the use of X in Y, may be a point of view, so here the WP:NPOV guidelines apply. Also a citation will be required to support the statement. However, newspapers may be accepted sources whereas some self-published books may not! There is no special requirement for "peer-reviewed" or "scholarly" sources.
    If for example, there is no suitable source for Elvira Madigan, then rather than indiscriminately deleting the material, one should simply state that the Andante from Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 was used as a theme, and omit the impact.

So with the above feedback, I have revised and simplified the section as follows:

Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other subject, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.

A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses (see WP:TRIVIA) whilst keeping factual information. If the music’s use is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use trivial and there is no cited referenced it will likely be removed. See WP:IPC for further guidance.

Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section.

We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering. Please limit feedback to the actual text of the proposed change and keep it brief. I appreciate that not everyone wants this content in 'their articles' so I do hope we can come to come agreement. Thanks,  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like more of a reception history approach. The new proposal is too wordy, misses the point for much of its wording, and "in popular culture" is not something aside from reception history, it is a part of reception history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the suggested titles from version 1, and instead link to WP:IPC, which allows for alternates tiles. Title realy depends upon content, and I dont think it belongs in this guideline. Perhaps Its not wordy enough and that needs to be made clear!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no, you seem to miss the point (as also the guidance proposal seems to miss the point): what I said was that I'd like more of a reception history approach (bolding added). There's indeed too much about what goes in which section already, and my reserve is not about section names as such. E.g. "Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section" is unnecessary instruction creep --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Francis that aiming more in the direction of reception history is the right direction. We need to avoid trivia and ephemera and to get away from the notion that the use of musical works in other works is confined to popular culture. OK, the concepts ephemera and trivia are subjective, but all that means is that we sometimes need discussion of specific cases. We don't need a crystal ball -- we wait until something is demonstrated to have lasting significance. Reliable secondary sources may not be necessary to verify use in another work, for the same reasons that reliable secondary sources aren't needed for plot sections, but independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability. I find it difficult to believe that the use of a work in a single TV commercial, video game or TV series's opening theme tune could normally be considered non-trivial. If a work is frequently being used in such things, then that is worth noting, but (allowing for very rare exceptions) one such use is almost by nature ephemeral. Major use in a major work (a recurring theme in a film; the theme for a notable set of variations; ...) is another matter. However, I disagree with Opus33's insistence on peer-reviewed scholarly sources about the work in question. We need reliable sources that are relevant, but that is all that need to be said about sources. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll set aside my minor quibbles and focus on the last sentence "Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section" which I find lacks clarity and doesn't seem to be prompted by anything in the previous discussion. Does this mean that discographies, staged performances, TV productions should each receive their own section? Or a section that's different from "in popular culture" (a section name I definitely don't like because of its exclusionary implication)? kosboot (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest the Largo from the New World in the Hovis advert, and Bach's air for Hamlet cigars were classics of their time. Also many classic TV themes are anything but trivial (Old grey whistle test; Going for a song, The Apprentice, etc, etc, in fact all the examples already given). It all depends on your interests and perspectives. That is why we need to separate the facts, and the impact.
There has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views, and we now need to focus on the changed text or we'll be going around in circles forever. My intention with the third paragraph (indeed the whole section) is to simply reiterate what current practice is. "Discographies", "Staged performances", and "TV productions" have all been used as sections in there own right. I didn't mean to dictate what section headers should be, and certainly don't want this guideline implemented retrospectively. It's not in the old/existing version, so I'm happy to drop it. Otherwise, perhaps you may like to suggest an alternative text. Whatever we do, nothing is written in stone. This is Misplaced Pages!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@SurreyJohn: You're doing a good job of convincing me that the current standard is as good as we're going to get, I'm afraid. New World in Hovis ad, Bach in Hamlet cigars, ..., all these things are anecdotal. The fact that they are very well known doesn't make them any less trivial. They tell us nothing about the New World largo or the Bach air. By themselves they tell us nothing about music in general either. They don't even tell us about the bread or the cigars. All they tell us about is the adverts. The reason we cannot separate the facts and the impact is that by doing so we would sacrifice the ability to assess what is significant and what is trivial. --Stfg (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stfg:: They tell us about their use in popular culture! Even with no analysis about impact (which in most cases there is), popularity and significant use are still an important facts. SurreyJohn   (Talk) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SurreyJohn, I know you mean well but my sense at this point is you are trying to nag the project into doing something for which there is no consensus. Opus33 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if the proposal was broken down into more manageable pieces we might be able to act upon it? (My basic feeling is that these sections should not be deleted - I think many agree; the question is how to deal with them and what to call them.

I am following this discussion at a distance (so far) but I have to concur that I do not find any consensus. I always worry when someone advancing any view takes the attitude 'there has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views'/'We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering', etc., which I find rather dismissive than consensual. In fact relatively few people have expressed views and they divide into camps which are some distance apart. My inclination is to those who hold reservations about SurreyJohn's enthusiasm. I think the suggestion above (by Kosboot?) to treat the proposal piece by piece might be helpful. (By the way, Für Elise is by Beethoven, not Mozart).--Smerus (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kosboot, Stfg, and Smerus: Actually I think there is quite a lot of agreement here, although clearly not everyone agrees on every point. The topic have been discussed for 6 weeks, and as I instigated this I am trying to bring things to a conclusion. I'm doing my best to move things slowly forward. At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable. There may be a majority view, but I doubt there will ever be complete agreement.

  • "Significant" uses in popular culture music are NOT trivia (but we need some for of guidance to define significant)
  • Avoid recommending a title (and use of High/Low culture) as part of guideline
  • Prefer prose to long lists of facts (although lists are sometimes useful)
  • Split out "trivial lists" into a separate article if excessive length
  • References are needed for notability (but not necessarily established facts)
  • Keep it brief, simple and clear

I dont agree "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get" - it "stinks":

  • "such edits should be discouraged" (and removed) is against the WP:TRIVIA policy.
  • "they are usually of little interest to readers" is untrue and condescending.
  • "contributions of this sort should be politely reverted" is not a WP:NPOV, a form of censorship, so also against policy.
  • The guideline does not reflect actual practices.

If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.
I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the WP:TRIVIA page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

My comment about "as good as we're going to get" didn't mean the best conceivable, but the best I feel able to hope for in practice, given the way the discussion is shaping up. Read my comment again. You're driving me, for one, away, with shouty capitals, accusing a major project contributor of filibustering, telling us what sort of comments you expect from us ("At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable.") and wikilawyering about policies and guidelines.
Insofar as some people have said some things that other people have agreed with, obviously there's a measure of agreement, but I don't yet see anything close to a consensus for how to update the section. If you think otherwise, you could always have another go at formulating an amendment that would capture that agreement without overriding other editors' views. At the moment, I personally don't see what it would look like. I can assure you, though, that anything in the direction of stating bald facts about symphonies and things being quoted in TV commercials would get an oppose from me. I was interested when you first raised this, because I see that the way music is used is a significant part of the history of music (as I said back then), but those things are trite and undue weight for a discussion of a major work of music. OK in an article about marketing or in one about brown bread, but not about the symphony. Popular ≠ significant.
WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC aren't the only story in town. We're here to discuss what does and does not contribute to making a good article specifically about music. While we shouldn't violate policies and wikipedia-wide guidelines, we can and should add to them what needs to be said about specialist areas. --Stfg (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A totally unacceptable proposal

I would like to offer an analysis of this discussion that is startlingly different from my first post, and then make a suggestion that will be totally unacceptable to everyone.

I think that there is actually a lot more agreement here than appears at first reading. All these references to specific examples suggests that there are many different cases, and each needs to be handled differently. The stupendous success of the Gymnopedies as film music is certainly a phenomenon, and needs to be mentioned, and maybe even made into a separate article. The occasional appearances of the Death and the Maiden quartet in TV commercials is probably irrelevant. And that our friend Francis thought that Mozart 31 belonged to Love Story and not to Elvira Madigan is possibly one of the best arguments for including that fact in the article.

I think we all agree that there are cases where reuses of a piece are relevant to the article, and other cases where they are not. We just don't all agree on where the boundary falls. We need to deal with this on a case by case basis.

Under the circumstances, perhaps the best thing to do is to have no standard at all. Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, as said I'd rather go in the direction of a more comprehensive view on reception history, and improve guidance starting from that idea. Didn't see anyone making an objection to that, or is there, and did I miss it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Dunno about totally unacceptable to everyone, but "Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up" is silly. On what criteria would we fight it out? We'd end up having this same discussion 2000 times. --Stfg (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Francis Schonken@: Introducing reception history now, is what I call filibustering! I felt we nearly had agreement, and now were going off on tangents.
  • Stfg@: I agree. The many authors who have already written these articles must want them.
  • Ravpapa@: I'm not sure this new section is adding anything, except distracting from the original discussion. You appeared to be in agreement, so why this new section titled unacceptable?
     SurreyJohn   (Talk) 09:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I introduced reception history well before the 2nd revision proposal . In my modest view the "in popular culture" puzzle isn't solvable without taking that broader approach. 'When' I proposed that framework is of less importance. It can lead to a swift agreement I think, for a proposal that was going nowhere for several weeks due to lack of consensus. Sorry for not being able to follow up every discussion more actively. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"The many authors who have already written these articles must want them." – There's much that people want, but Misplaced Pages has some standards for article content, incl. WP:TRIVIA & WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Reception theory explains different reactions to a creative work, based on the audience's background; it doesn't help to determine what's appropriate; reliable sources about usage and impact do. Like Stfg, I'm convinced "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get". (@SurreyJohn:, you might want to consult the documentation for {{@}}; I suspect it's not doing what you intend.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC). Thanks for the tip Michael - Apologies to anyone I've been spamming.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that reminder to WP:TRIVIA, Michael. It does not say that articles should not have them; rather it encourages a standardized way of presenting the information so that it's not an indiscriminate list of information. Perhaps that could be done by having sections with and without sourcing. kosboot (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops Reception history apparently redirects mistakenly to Reception theory, which displays a massive sourcing problem. That's not what I meant. wikt:reception history doesn't help either. So you'll have to understand me without the square brackets: "reception history". How and when and with how much success a composition was performed and recorded and otherwise referred to or presented is all part of the reception history, without confining it to some sort of badly explained "theory". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One way to indicate reception history (aside from writing a proper article on it) would be to have all the information in chronological order as much as possible. Perhaps even begin each item in the list with the year. kosboot (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
?? Where did that come from? I've read some reception histories (many of them written before Misplaced Pages existed), and true, often there is some chronology in the account, but in general I'd like to see less bulleted lists (few reception histories are written in that format). Grouping history of the printed editions; of the notable performances; of the way it permeated collective memory; etc in separate divisions are no less established in the practice of writing reception histories. Here's an example of a "reception history" that starts with a 21st century example, before shifting back to a 19th century example and only after that getting back to the first publication, etc. I don't say that's how a Misplaced Pages reception history section should typically look like, but I hope what I try to say here comes over a bit broader than "let's have more chronological lists". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I would point out that WP:TRIVIA does not really address the issue of references to a work in popular culture, nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which these types of references certainly are not. What is directly relevant to this discussion is WP:"In popular culture" content, which is not a guideline but an essay. I am guessing that it is an essay because the same debate we are having here has been thrashed about everywhere else in the pedia, and no consensus has been reached. Which makes me think: what have we said here that has not already been said in that essay? And, under the circumstances, do we really want or need a guideline in this matter? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Suppose you're rather looking for WP:PRIMARY: "be cautious about basing large passages on (primary sources)". No need to rehash that. Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions falls short of that policy, so it is a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps the guidelines we need are admonishments to make them have some kind of logic (following WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and for others not to delete them. kosboot (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ravpapa, Francis Schonken, and Kosboot: Thanks for clearing up the confusion about Reception theory. I'm sure I fully understand whats being suggested, and do accept ordered and structured information is preferable to random facts, and suggest that the WP:TRIVIA guideline may suffice (see my discussion above). I think the way forward is to reference and WP:IPC, rather than repeat it. I do realise WP:IPC is an essay, so was careful not to call it a policy. Kosboot is absolutely right about admonishments, especially if there has been a lack of understand, and possibly edit wars in the past. Any guideline should be clear, unambiguous, and consistent with policy. SurreyJohn   (Talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Chamber Music Project

As I've mentioned in earlier messages I'm currently working on cleaning up some of the "lacunae" in the chamber music section. To date I have completed the following articles to what I'd term "preliminary" status.

I've left notes on the talk pages of some of these outlining points that need clearing up or expanding upon.

As soon as I have the information I will be working on the Lalo Piano Quintet.

My next planned project is the Saint-Saens Piano Quartet in B-flat major, Op. 41. The planned title will be "Piano Quartet in B-flat major (Saint-Saëns)" rather than "Piano Quartet No. 2 (Saint-Saëns)" because up until 1992 (At least as far as I can tell), the earlier E major Piano Quartet was unknown, therefore using Piano Quartet No.1/No.2 would be anacronistic.

I would like to know everyones thoughts on the above before I proceed though.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work; I suggest a passing admin give you WP:Autopatrolled status. I you're comfortable doing so, please also create a Wikidata entry for each new article. Let me know if you'd like me to show you how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I am planning to search up some additional sources for the String Quartet No. 1 (Dvořák) article, when I do this I plan to change the referencing format to match the articles I've created so far. Does anyone have any objections?Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance wanted with Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart)

This article has been completed, but I've had to leave the linkage to the score/critical report in the NMA because I don't understand exactly how to sort out the links, if anyone reads this and understands how to do so could they please add the links to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Michael Bednarek for sorting that one out. Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Research Help wanted - Planned article on the Lalo Piano Quintet

I'm planning to tackle the Lalo A flat major "Fantaisie-quintette" composed around 1862 as my next chamber music article. From an intial websearch I've found that the work was in manuscript up until very recently and in fact the first recording was only released this year. Thankfully the label in question, Continuo Classics does make their liner notes available, so I should be able to write a basic article. But I would like to ask if anyone has access to biographical information/scholarly articles or even knowledge of online theses in English discussing the work to let me know where I can find them. I want to make the article as comprehensive as I can. Graham1973 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Research Help wanted - Flute Sonata in B-flat major (Attributed to Beethoven)

I am currently accumulating information on this work, but my usual sources, dissertations and liner notes seem to be scarce on this piece. All I've so far been able to find out is that it was allegedly found amongst Beethovens papers after his death, was dated to the 1790s but was not published until 1906, but many of the intervening steps are missing. Can anyone point me to something online that I could use.

Planning to move on the Flute Sonata next, if anyone can find more details feel free to add them to the stub article when it is up.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Lento for Strings

Have added Lento for Strings to this project after discovering one of the references is a page number without the details of the book(?) it came from. Will be linking the liner notes mentioned once I have located them.Graham1973

I've converted the references to the Chandos CD liner notes to Harvard ID formatting with a link to the notes at the Chandos website. I cannot do anything about the reference given as "Harris & Meredith, p.411" as the author of the article never bothered to give any details about where this comes from so I do need help on finding the book this comes from.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The unspecified source could be Malcolm Williamson: A Mischievous Muse by Anthony Meredith and Paul Harris, but we probably shouldn't assume this until someone can find a copy and check. --Deskford (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks I'll see if I can find that book.Graham1973 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Category: Compositions Attributed to Mozart

After adding my article on the Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest it occured to me that when/if I complete articles on Violin Sonatas attributed to Mozart, it might be worthwhile creating a category to link them with other articles on the forum covering works that have also been attributed to Mozart such as the Adélaïde Concerto or Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, K. 18, but I would not like to do so without obtaining a consensus first. Opinions please?

Graham1973 (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this. Opus33 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There are several compositions wrongly (but is it spuriously?) attributed to Bach, some in different colour here, and there's a mass by father Mozart for a while attributed to the son (well, our conductor says that several of the early ones rely heavily on fatherly advice), K 115 , --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
... Toy symphony, another injustice to Mozart senior.
For the naming I'd rely on the native English speakers I suppose. Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Mozart and Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution seem correct to me, though somewhat long for a category name. Is there a more suitable alternative? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Great idea for a category. I prefer "doubtfully" over "wrongly" or "spuriously", since it's difficult to be definitive about these things in many cases. --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • There are the doubtful works (not ultimately proven they're not by the composer) and there are the spurious or wrongly attributed works. Composition catalogues can make such distinction, e.g. the original Köchel catalogue Anh. 185-231 = "Zweifelhafte" (doubtful), Anh. 232-294 = "Unterschobene" (spurious). For example, the Adélaïde Concerto is not "doubtful", it is "spurious". While indeed for some of these there is some discussion whether they are really "spurious" or only "doubtful" I'd like a category name that doesn't lead to taking sides (downside: longer category name, however unavoidable when we want to do this the NPOV way). I think even the Köchel successors ultimately opted for this approach, this is what I read in the Adélaïde Concerto article: "in the sixth edition of the Köchel catalogue, ... Anhang C designated for spurious or doubtful works" (bolding added). While one can't say "spurious or doubtful works by Mozart" (contradictio in terminis isn't it?), I think this might work: Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works if we want a shorter title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Understood (sorry about lack of language, I would not have thought that "attributed" would ever be used for compositions he composed), - but how about the ones that are neither spurious or doubtful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
"Spurious" and "wrongly attributed" are synonyms afaik.
"the others"? We have "composed by" (=category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart nothing needs to change there), "not composed by" (=spurious) and "not sure whether composed by" (=doubtful)
Here are all the chapters of the original Köchel anhang:
I. Lost works ("Verloren gegangene"): or, belonging in "Composed by" category (although maybe not so probable we'd ever have separate articles about these, but compare e.g. Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius), no problem to have that article in Category:Symphonies by Jean Sibelius, there's no problem with the attribution)
II. Incomplete works ("Unvollständige") Similar, e.g. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Category:Piano sonatas by Franz Schubert. Although Schubert with his Unfinished Symphony, and many other unfinished works, might merit a category:Unfinished compositions by Franz Schubert subcat. For Mozart I don't know whether there would be much more than K. 427, K. 626 (note: neither of these in this Anhang!) and K. Anh. 104
III. Reassigned compositions ("Uebertragene"): First thought to be an independent composition, but e.g. a "concert aria" that appears to be just an aria of one of his early operas, so gets assigned the K. number of the opera (nothing category-wise there I suppose, just things that sometimes might need some explanation in the article)
IV. Zweifelhafte and V. Unterschobene, as explained above, I'd have these in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works
Other thing, I'd definitely avoid "W. A." in a category name either "Mozart" or with given names unabbreviated. I'd prefer the former, not like there's any confusion with F. X. W. when we only use the last name is there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for more diligence. I thought not of F. X. but Leopold, mentioned above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
True (to some extent: there aren't that much with a wrong or doubtful attribution to Leopold afaik), but it's rather about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, like Bach's church music in Latin, which is not about C. P. E., W. F., P. D. Q. (etc.) while J. S. is the primary topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on this:

? Or are there still other names for such categories in the running? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree to these names, but would not know if a work should go in that without doubt is not by the one, but was attributed in history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Francis's proposed terms are helpful, and support. Don't get Gerda's point - could she rephrase it?--Smerus (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes: examples BWV 53, K 115: a work was attributed to a composer (Bach, Mozart), then firmly and without doubt, but now we know without doubt that someone else composed it (possibly Hoffmann, Leopold Mozart). Does such a work fit the category, or should it stay out? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Such issues can be tackled by the category definition, a bit thinking aloud (open for all suggestions) something like this?:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's spurious and doubtful works are the works indicated as such in the latest version of the Köchel catalogue, or in any previous version (unless when moved to the main catalogue in more recent versions of the catalogue). Also works for which there has been a persistent attribution to Mozart, traceable in other reliable sources, without any mention in any version of the Köchel catalogue can be included in this category. Also compositions not removed from the main catalogue in its latest version, but with reliable sources doubting or disproving the attribution to Mozart, can be included in this category.

E.g. The London Sketchbook, K. 15a–ss, once "Anhang", now main catalogue should not be included in the category.
Does that cover this issue sufficiently? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This is fine by me.--Smerus (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Expanded a bit to include K. 115 (see table at List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for those not knowing what this K. 115 is about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, started

(see also category definitions included there, improve if necessary)

→ some hands to get these properly filled? Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Like to help, but today is national holiday and concert day. I just fixed Bach's Magnificat a bit, for the comparison to make sense. Please feel free to improve, it's just a draft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
All the symphonies from the list of Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity have been added to the category.Graham1973 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There are several works attributed to the wrong Mozart and reassigned from W. A. M. to L. M. Category:Bach: spurious and doubtful has the same problem. Sparafucil (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't see a problem per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Renamings

Bolding what I just added to WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title:

...use the numbers as in the original 1862 version of the Köchel catalogue in article titles as they appear the most recognisable, unless for numbers that moved from the Anhang (Anh.) to the actual catalogue (use oldest version where the number appears in the main section of the catalogue in that case). This does however not apply to compositions in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works: these are preferably disambiguated by nickname, Anhang number or (attributed to Mozart), not by ", K. Deest". In this case the (Mozart) disambiguator is only possible for series integrity.:

(note that category sorting still needs to be looked at, but that's the next step) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Renamings for Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution:

-- Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me to understand why F but G major. I would understand in F and in G major, if part of a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops, nice catch, amended --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Beethovens renamed, Mozart list updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Updated 05:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 - Expanding the article.

I've started searching for sources to be used to expand this article. To date I've found several primary sources (newspaper articles) from Australia and New Zealand from the 1890's which I've linked to the talk page for the article.

I've not been so successful in turning up scholarly works. It seems that Everist's book dominates the search engines at the moment. If anyone can turn up good sources, especially as it relates to the attribution issue I would be very appreciative. Graham1973 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Grove 1907 (linked from the sources section) gives a status questionis over a century ago. The Pajot article names a few sources, but haven't looked yet whether they would be easily accessible. See also User talk:Graham1973#Twelfth Mass. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

General question: Mozart Forum / Pajot: do they count as WP:RS? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit difficult. Den(n)is Pajot is certainly widely cited on Misplaced Pages (>100 times), not only here but also on CA, DE, ES, FR, GL, HE, HU, IT, JA, SV – probably mostly copied from articles here, but still... He's also cited by Naxos, the Mutopia Project, and many classical music sites. So, yes. — OTOH, I've never seen anything published by Pajot outside the Mozart Forum, so no (although I now find an article by him in The Double Reed, vol 30 (2007), on "Two Mozart Vocal Movements Rearranged by Johann Adam Hiller".) Judging by the quality of his writing, I think there's much to be gained from his articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarity of your answer (it was clear in the sense that you feel ambiguous about the source). Posted the question here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Phasing out the forum

Despite the many qualities of Pajot's work seems like we have to start thinking of replacing Mozart Forum sourcing, with e.g. references to the sources Pajot mentions, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pajot / Mozart Forum (only available through Archive.Org). Who's on board on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

IMSLP links

I think it would be nice if each article about a particular public-domain composition had an external link to the relevant IMSLP hub (e.g., http://imslp.org/Le_Carnaval_des_Animaux_%28Saint-Saëns%2C_Camille%29). IMSLP is a great resource, but can be tricky to use for people who don't know to try "Bach Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott" as well as "bwv 302" or "bach mighty fortress god". FourViolas (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BWV 302 is a chorale harmonization listed at List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach. The list is sortable (alphabetically, by BWV number etc, however not by English translation while the list provides none). At the bottom of that list article there is:
You'll find the score there easily, when memorizing the number you're looking for from the table.
I think all Bach cantatas have their separate Misplaced Pages article by now, with a link to the score at IMSLP at the bottom of the page (including Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80). Bach's chorale harmonizations don't have separate articles yet afaik. The chorales themselves do, including A Mighty Fortress Is Our God, mentioning the BWV 302 harmonization in the "Arrangements" section. Yes, an IMSLP link could be provided at the bottom of such articles too I suppose, feel free to go ahead, I suppose I gave all the info needed for such updates.
PS: also The Carnival of the Animals already has the IMSLP link listed at the bottom of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that the template {{IMSLP2}} exists for this purpose; see also Wikidata property P839. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)