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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:44, 29 December 2012 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,349 edits →Arbitrary break (Example infobox): r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:42, 2 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,698 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 81) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-02-28/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=28|month=February|year=2011 }}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{Shortcut|WT:CM}}
== Papa Haydn ==
{{User:MiszaBot/config
By accident far from my wiki-home I discovered ] without any project banners, although talk is relatively recent.
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 81
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Classical music}}
}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes|style=width:300px;|age=90}}


== "Notable" recordings ==
Its only category is {{c|Joseph Haydn}}. The article may be more about classical music than about Joseph, eg:
: "Papa" as founder
: Another sense of the term "Papa Haydn" comes from his role in the history of classical music, notably in the development of the symphony and string quartet.
So I "assigned" it to you as well as to Biography and Composers. --] (]) 21:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


I often consult Misplaced Pages for factual information about classical music composers and compositions. I noticed that many articles about compositions have a section called "Notable recordings". I have been searching Misplaced Pages to find the criteria for what is considered a "notable" recording, but to no avail. Please enlighten me. ] (]) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
== Antonín Dvořák ==
:You may be asking the wrong question. Most notable recordings were put there by editors who either a) had favorite recordings they wanted to include, or b) had opinions on which recordings were notable. Better-written articles will cite sources that establish notability for a certain batch of recordings. For instance ] cites this '''' article, which is a collation of choices from various established music critics. Another example, ] cites ''1001 Classical Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die'', a generally well-regarded publication.
Lately, I have been thinking about doing a GA/FA push for ]. The discussion is ] if anyone is interested. Comments, additions and ideas on how to improve the article are always welcome. Thanks, ] (] - ]) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
:So there's no Misplaced Pages criteria; we used reliable sources to establish notability, us usual, but given that millions of articles remain in a poor state, many do not follow suit. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 01:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
: In articles I write, there's no "notable" nor "selected", but both words seem to ''indicate'' that the list is not complete, which may be a given for anyone with many recordings. --] (]) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:For context, the IP user is probably referring to on the ] article (which is a good edit), since it's the only edit I could find in the /64 range that looks related. Out of curiosity, I checked out some of the other symphony articles from the top section of the {{tl|Johannes Brahms}} template, and couldn't find any other instances of "notable recordings". Without further context or explanation, this post at face value comes across as a grievance against the format of one individual article that probably was built by a less-experienced editor in terms of familiarity with encyclopedic structure and writing. That Symphony #4 section appeared to be just a random indiscriminate unsourced list, whereas the two examples cited above by {{u|Aza24}} contain meaningful heavily-sourced encyclopedic prose. As to {{u|Gerda Arendt}}'s point, if there are concerns about the inherent incompleteness of a certain list type, then it may be appropriate to use the {{tl|dynamic list}} notice in such situations. ] (]) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion of interest ==
== ] of ] ==
]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">]</small> 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Project members may want to participate in this discussion: ] – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==
] and ] were both cellists who lived from 1805 to 1887, but the articles claim one was German and one was French. It looks like they are the same person, who was born in Germany and eventually moved back, but spent a significant amount of time in France. If this is correct, the articles should be merged. ] ] 00:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


== Chamber Music Northwest ==
:Yes, it is the same person. I've merged the information and redirected to ], as he is better known (and his music is still published) under this name. His "40 Studies" are still well known among cellists. --] (] | ]) 07:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


] has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in discussing or improving the article:
== Mozart GA/FA push ==
Hi. Just so everyone is aware, I am trying to help improve ] to GA/FA status. The discussion is at ]. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thank you, ] (] - ]) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


* ]
== Elimination of Latsabidze Giorgi biography in French Misplaced Pages ==
Hello my name is Adolfo, I have 39 years and I studied piano for 30 years, I'm writing from Spain. My teacher was from Georgia and he spoke of his country's best musician Latsabidze Giorgi, I study their records and know well their work and career. First I want to congratulate you for your good article on Latsabidze in the English Misplaced Pages. I'm writing because I need your help because Latsabidze's biography has been removed from the French Misplaced Pages, they have told many lies about Latsabidze, they say they have never won the international competition Rubeinstein of Paris, who has never received the scholarship Carol Hogel, who has never recorded an album etc .... As you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion:Giorgi_Latsabidze/Suppression I wrote to administrators to demonstrate the lies they tell: http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion_utilisateur:LPLT (August 12) http://fr.wikipedia.org/Discussion_utilisateur:Wikinade (August 15) After demonstrating that they lie, I have requested that the biography is restored in the French Misplaced Pages as you can see here:http://fr.wikipedia.org/Wikipédia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Giorgi_Latsabidze (August 17) They've given the reasons as you can see and I have proven to be lies. I need your help and the help of the English Misplaced Pages, I need people to write to show their disagreement with the decision because only tell lies about Giorgi Latsabidze. I can not and I just need people to agree with me that it is written in the French Misplaced Pages showing their disagreement. Thank you very much for your attention--] (]) 08:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
::Adolfo, some of those links are dead. It seems that they were worried about (i) Notability, (ii) puff-piece. I'm a bit surprised on count (i), and (ii) can easily be dealt with. Did they not even give you the option of a sandbox while you work on it? (that can be tricky, BLPs are subject to sourcing requirements whether in or out of sandbox). I don't edit much on fr.wp but enough to feel entitled to support an article there if 1 or 2 others did. ] (]) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
==Article alerts not working?==
Is there something wrong with alerts? I was wondering why there's been no WP:CM editor input to ] RM, and now I see that the alert didn't pick up the RM. I have put in one for the other well known French-Vietnamese composer, the Messaien student ] → Nguyễn Thiện Đạo per EMI and Erato LP covers (no sign of a CD reissue...) we'll see if that kicks the alert trigger. (not that all music editors automatically support funny names) ] (]) 15:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
*...Ah, because the article affected actually has to have WikiProject Classical music tag on Talk page, not just WP Composer Tag. Subproject tags don't get picked up by alerts... Fair enough. ] (]) 03:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


---] <sub>(])</sub> 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
== Mass in B minor ==


== Künstlerleben ==
On the talk, I had a question in April 2010 about the ], it's still open. Right now, the Mass is mentioned on the Main page, --] (]) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
:Not waiting any longer, I started a table ]. Please check it for omissions/mistakes, and please check if it should replace part of the Main article, I didn't dare to go that far, --] (]) 12:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi all,
== Planned edit-a-thon ==


Looking for someone from this WikiProject to have a look at ]; the entire article appears to have been lifted from "original text by Peter Kemp, The Johann Strauss Society of Great Britain. Used with permission." Nowhere does the article say what this original text is or provide any lroof of permission so the article will need a total and complete rewrite (the article itself is very peacock-y and has no other sources at all).
From 8–14 October 2012, Australia's primary classical music broadcaster, ], will be holding a countdown of the ] as voted by listeners to the radio station. Some Australian Wikipedians including myself are planning to be involved in an ] to create and improve articles about the works on the countdown. Feel free to join in if you'd like! ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
:Very nice! For those of us non-locals, perhaps you can have participants create a list of articles created/edited, so members of this group can examine and perhaps expand. -- ] (]) 00:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
::Good idea. I've copied your comment to ]. All comments should go there rather than here so the conversation is kept in one place. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 05:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
:::The project page now includes a "to do" list which we will keep updated with all of the things we think of that need fixing/creating etc. Please feel free to add your own ideas there, comment and take tasks from that list! Here it is: ]. ]] 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Since this takes place in a library, you should add your editathon to the events at: ''']'''. ] (]) 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
:::::Good idea; ]. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 03:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


It is very clearly a notable topic, being a Strauss II waltz, so I'm loathe to bring it to AfD which would have been my first call if notability was unclear. ] ] 19:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
== Gabriel Fauré ==
:When you added {{t|Copypaste}} to the article, you didn't specify {{para|url}}, so it's impossible to verify any copy/paste. As it stands, the article ought to be tagged with {{t|Unreferenced}} instead. As you mentioned, AfD is inappropriate. Similar to thousands of other articles, this one needs improving. -- ] (]) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


== FA edits ==
May I nominate Gabriel Faure for Today's featured article on November 4th? I asked the most significant contributor, Ssilvers, and he said it was alright, but to ask here, so I am.--] (]) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
:I need to know.--] (]) 20:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
::Why not? --] (]) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


I noticed today an unusual amount of edits to composer's featured articles, many of them being the first edits from newly created accounts. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but seemed weird. See ], ], ], ], ]...
== Musopen: adding free music to articles ==


Some edits do not seem to match the quality expected for a FA, hopefully a more experienced editor can take a look. Some have been already reverted. — <span style="color:#00008B; font-weight:bold; font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;">]</span> <span style="font-size:1.4em;">&#119070;</span> 22:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I've recently come across ], which not only serves as a repository for free (i.e. freely licenced) music, but has also commissioned recordings of professional orchestras performing famous pieces which have been released into the Public Domain. A list of the "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" recordings can be found (under Music, not Most Popular), and it would be great to have these added to the articles that don't currently have a recording for readers to listen to. In order to add them, follow these steps:
: I looked. For Poulenc, there was one edit of many changes, some good, others less so. I explained the problem to the new editor, saying that all might be reverted if they didn't fix the problems. Schumann: an IP at work, wanting to add Tchaikovsky's view. I reverted that once, but IP brought it back, and now someone else fixed small unrelated formatting errors which makes reverting more complicated. I'd appreciate if someone else did it. The other three articles looked under control when I checked. --] (]) 22:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#Register at Musopen (allows 5 downloads a day)
: ps: the same IP tried similar things for Schumann's ]. Please watch that also for returning attempts. --] (]) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
#Navigate to the page of the piece you want to add (you can click on the piece's arrow button on the right under "Learn More" for the piece you want from the link above)
::Are these the edits made by the user Jevansen? They have made category changes to hundreds of articles.- 03:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
#A list of recordings should appear, with buttons "Bookmark", "Download" and "Play Music" (note that some, such as the Coriolan Overture do not seem to have the recordings uploaded)
#Click on the arrow on the far right of the "Download" button, and click on "HQ File" from the drop down list that appears
#Download the file, and convert to FLAC ( is very easy to use once installed)
#Convert this FLAC file to OGG Vorbis (the format Misplaced Pages uses) using for best results (even easier to use once installed)
#Upload this OGG file to (give the page ] as the source, Musopen as the author and specify "Another reason not mentioned above" with the following code: <code><nowiki>{{PD-author|}}</nowiki></code>, but repeating the source page URL in place of <code><nowiki>http://www.musopen.org/music/piece/1568</nowiki></code>
#Use a simple filename (I've been using "Musopen - Piece name.ogg") and then add it to the article using the following code: <code><nowiki>{{Listen|filename=Musopen - Piece name.ogg|title=''Title''|description=''Title'' performed by the ] Symphony Orchestra}}</nowiki></code> (replacing the filename with the name you uploaded it as, and the title)
It may seem complicated at first, but once done the first time is really very straightforward. I've added recordings to a couple of articles, but am having trouble downloading the tracks from Musopen at the moment (which I put down to my internet connection), so if anyone else wants to help out here either follow the instructions, or if you'd rather just download them and email the files to me, I'd be happy to convert, upload and add them to the articles. Thanks. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


== Cleanup suitable for someone new to WP? ==
:Nice work! However, it'd be better to use the lossless files. See ] from last year. IMO it would also be a good idea to add the composer's name in the file name. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 12:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
::Also see ] and ], a project that dealt with many of the original Musopen uploads. You may want to contact ] and/or ] about Musopen. IIRC the latter user negotiated with the founder of the site to allow recordings from Musopen on Misplaced Pages in the first place; the former user instigated the proposal I mentioned above. I don't have much time to work on this at the moment but I wish you well. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks, my half-baked solution (I used the suggested general preference for ogg files, down to the encoder software - I hadn't seen the discussion you mention at the time) was based on the disappointing lack of good quality examples on most of the relevant articles, and an assumption that many of this project's users may not be very tech savvy (which seems unfounded in hindsight). Thankfully it seems to have spurred another user to use a much better set of steps than I'd taken and add many other Musopen pieces; I hope they continue to be added as Musopen produces them! --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


Hello everyone! I'm a pretty new editor with too much free time and a personal passion for classical music (I haven't formally studied it, though). Does anyone have any recommendations for getting started on improving WP's classical music coverage? Thanks, ] (yell at me ]) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
The code in step 8 above should be <code><nowiki>{{Listen| filename= Musopen - Piece name.ogg | title= ''Title'' | description= ''Title'' performed by the ] Symphony Orchestra | type= music}}</nowiki></code> - i.e. with an additional {{para|type|music}}. That sets the appropriate icon and allows tracking of where free music is used. (I've also added white space for readability and ease of editing; but that's less critical.) <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


:Welcome! After getting familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], a great way to start is by improving stub articles, specially on your favorite topics. Check out ] for examples of high-quality work. You could also try fixing some (see ] to do the same for related Wikiprojects). — <span style="color:#00008B; font-weight:bold; font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;">]</span> <span style="font-size:1.4em;">&#119070;</span> 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tl|Musopen}} should also be used in the source field. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply and the tools! I suppose I'll just ] and make some changes :) ] (yell at me ]) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Nitpick: that should be ], to be used in the file description at Commons.
:::A caution is that web material on classical music is often wrong or out of date. If you can access ] through your public or university library, you will have access to a source that, although not always fully detailed, is usually pretty reliable. Failing that, searching on ] or ] will usually get you better material than just regular Google. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Re steps 5 & 6: The conversion from MP3 or FLAC to OGG can also be done with ]. -- ] (]) 05:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
:::That's the template, perhaps I should have said one only needs to type <code><nowiki>{{Musopen}}</nowiki></code>. And I'm not sure about Audacity, but I know that some of the other encoders aren't at the same standard as the ] : dBpoweramp for example gave awful results, stripping all metadata and started at about 1 minute in when played back through VLC (hence why I didn't merge steps 5 and 6). Also, the lossless audio files for most of the tracks that I saw (and I was mostly looking at the newly commissioned "Musopen Symphony Orchestra" pieces) were in m4a format, which is propriety, though it seems the HQ format for their older files is still FLAC; it might be best just to convert to FLAC and upload, but OGG's smaller file size is a strength. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 06:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps you're using the free version of dBpoweramp, because the paid one keeps all tags just fine and tend to be the preferred audio converter from what I've seen. But it pains me to see people talking about going from Mp3 to Ogg in the first place. :-( Yes it's smaller but it also creates quality loss on top of quality loss. Not a problem for 30 second samples, but whole pieces, especially well recorded ones it's....just bad. As for M4A, those are ]s, like you would buy on iTunes. ] (]) 13:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


== Proper movement titles of Tartini's ']' ==
== Template:Johann Sebastian Bach should be kept ==


I am attempting to upload a (licensed under CC BY 3.0) to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used in the piece's Misplaced Pages article. However, I have encountered a problem: I'm not quite sure what the individual movements should be listed as.
'''Keep''' - My template for Johann Sebastian Bach was removed from several articles without proper discussion taking place. I believe that ] should be kept, as there are more than 5 articles related to him. Perhaps several "sub-templates" could be nested under this one.


I've cut the piece into its 4 movements, and I'd like to include the name of each movement in the corresponding file name, and changing a file name on Wikimedia Commons after it's been uploaded is a bit of a pain in the ass. But different sources give different descriptions of each movement.
{{Johann Sebastian Bach|state=expanded}}
--] (]) 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


lists the 4 movements (without citing a source) as:
:I don't see yet for which purpose we need this template. The articles appear on the main article Bach, and people looking up works can easily go there, I see no need to blow up hundreds of articles. --] (]) 10:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I. Larghetto ma non troppo
::'''Comment''' - If this is the case, then we don't need any navboxes on Misplaced Pages at all. The navbox is designed to assist in navigating between related articles. The article about JSB itself and the articles that relate to it are long, and the navbox makes finding these articles much easier. This navbox is in line with ].--] (]) 10:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
II. Allegro moderato
:::I don't agree. I like the template Bach cantatas
III. Andante
{{Bach cantatas}}
IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai
:::and (almost) could not live without it ;) It allows easy links between articles of the same kind. I don't see a reader of the ] article sufficiently interested in the Bach family, for example, to install links to those rather remote articles. --] (]) 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The 4 scores from IMSLP (, , , ) describe the 4 movements variously as:
::::'''Comment''' - Given the number of Bach family members, I strongly believe that some type of navbox is in order, and recommend that people make '''suggestions''' instead of just eliminating the navbox outright. Instead of removing a navbox from all articles, which is the antithesis of consensus, it should at a minimum be brought to AfD, instead of making threats to involve an admin as was done on my talk page.--] (]) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I. Larghetto affectuoso
:::::Sorry, I didn't mean to threaten. I asked you to wait, you didn't listen, I felt a bit helpless. Perhaps you wait now, that Mirokado said it much nicer? ;) --] (]) 11:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
II. Tempo guisto (presumably meant to be "giusto"; some also include "della Scuola Tartinista")
* '''Comment'''. Since you have started this section to discuss whether the template should be added or not, please do not keep adding it until the issue is resolved. Generally we should ensure there is consensus to make wide-ranging systematic changes to articles, which is another reason to hold off until there is consensus to add this. ''If'' the decision is to add it, please look at ] and other articles with navboxen to see where in the source it goes. I will think a bit before responding to the actual keep-or-not question. --] (]) 11:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
III. Andante
::The <span class="plainlinks"></span> was unsuitable for inclusion in any article. That's why I removed it. Following ], this discussion ought to have been the next step. Now, that ] has made some sensible changes (and may possibly continue to so), it may be used on pages which are mentioned in the template, but it should not be deployed on every JSB-related article; see ], ("... every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." – ] is not an accepted guideline or even policy. -- ] (]) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai — Adagio (sometimes with "Trillo del diavolo al pie de letto" or just "trillo del diavolo" mixed in)
:::'''Concur''' - I concur that the new navbox is satisfactory, and that whatever is related to JSB (and is not a Bach cantata) can be placed in the navbox. IMO, the navbox should have been trimmed, not deleted from all pages that it was on, including the parent article.--] (]) 16:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The recording I'm using (linked above) lists (in the video itself, not timestamped) only 3 movements (combining movements 3 and 4) as:
I. Larghetto ma non troppo
II. Allegro moderato
III. Grave — Allegro assai
And to top it all off, I on the video over a year ago (when I first found the recording) listing timestamps for 4 movements as:
I. Larghetto affectuoso
II. Allegro
III. Grave
IV. Allegro assai
(Not sure what my source was for that comment; I thought I looked through a score on IMSLP to find them, but going back over them now, I guess not?)


Do any of you know what each movement should be called, or what would be the most accurate? I'm pretty sure movements that bounce between various tempos shouldn't have more than 3 tempo terms in the title, so is the Misplaced Pages title for movement 4 correct? What about the others?
Should birth/death dates be added in parentheses to members of the Bach family, or perhaps their relation to Bach? For example, "Anna Magdalena Bach" would appear as "Anna Magdalena Bach (1701–1760)" or "Anna Magdalena Bach (wife)". ] (]) 23:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Any help with this is greatly appreciated.
:@Jax 0677: Concur? I said the opposite of what you claim to concur to; the ] cannot possibly be populated with "whatever is related to JSB" nor should it be used in articles which are not mentioned in it.
:Jax 0677 has created another half-baked template, {{Tl|Bach family}}, which has inappropriate content and is mis-categorised; see ]. Despite these flaws and without learning from the previous experience, Jax 0677 deployed this template immediately to 4 articles, 3 of which already had the controversial ]. I suggest to remove it from all articles, whether its obvious flaws are corrected or not, and discuss the need, name, content, and deployment of such a template.
:@Hyacinth: Their relationship to JSB seems more informative to me. -- ] (]) 05:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::The navbox does seem much improved. If the current "List" articles were added to the compositions section, it seems like it might be OK in the "See also" section of the main ] article. Can't say that I care for the color though. --] (]) 16:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
:::'''Comment'''
:::@Michael - What I meant is that articles that are related to JSB '''might''' be includable into ]. If this is the case, then they can be included in those articles. The ] has more than 5 notable family members, who can also be added to {{Tl|Bach family}} along with articles related to them. If there are many articles related to an individual, then an additional navbox for that individual can be created. I have deleted the portals and changed the category, which were oversights.
:::TfD exists for the purpose of deciding which navboxes to keep or not. Deleting a navbox from ALL articles is a lot like deleting the entire template from Misplaced Pages before consensus is reached, and opposes ].


:::<br>BTW, why was the template removed from the ] article?--] (]) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks. ] (]) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Bach family|state=expanded}}
::::1) Surely, that article doesn't need 2 templates with overlapping content. 2) The template seemed to be be still under construction. A template for the most influential composer ever needs careful consideration, which seemed to be lacking.
::::Being bold is the 1st step in the ] cycle, although in the past similar issues have been put up for discussion here first; this template might have benefited from such a discussion.
::::@Robert Allen: 1) Both template are based on {{Tl|Navbox musical artist}} and their colouring stems from the {{Para|background|solo_singer}} in the case of {{Tl|Johann Sebastian Bach}}, and from {{Para|background|group_or_band}} in the case of {{Tl|Bach family}}; this seems a strange choice as we use {{Tl|Navbox}} for other composers. 2) The "See also" section is not the proper place for navigation boxes, the bottom of the article is; see ].
::::Nitpick: Both templates use documentation which claims they use the {{Tl|collapsible option}} but they don't. -- ] (]) 10:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


== The Decca ''Ring'' ==
:::::State added to both templates so that they have the collapsible option. ] (]) 10:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


I put together ] a couple of years ago about this milestone in the history of recording and was helped by advice here about how to title it. After a little buffing I've now put it up as a Good Article nominee. If any music lover who sees this would like to review it I'd be most grateful. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 12:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
=== Should the three templates be combined into one template? ===
I am wondering, should ], ] and ] be combined into one template, having the other two redirect to ]? Any family member with less than 4-5 related articles could be put in the related articles section of the template, and and family member with more can have their very own template. Thoughts?--] (]) 04:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
:I vote against combining Bach cantatas with anything. It's complex and dedicated to the one topic, --] (]) 04:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with Gerda that the cantatas template doesn't lend itself to further expansion. As for JSB Bach & family: several editors have spent considerable effort to sort out their content (and that of {{Tl|C.P.E. Bach}}) – their content & deployment seems now about right to me and I suggest to leave them as they are. -- ] (]) 09:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


:My schedule will be become much freer around the 27th next week, so if no one else gets to it by then, I'd be happy to step in. '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
::Splendid! Thank you. I'll keep my fingers crossed. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)


== List of classical music composers by era ==
Comments welcomed ] to help resolve a disagreement. Thanks, --] (]) 19:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


Dear colleagues, there is an ongoing discussion at ]. This list, with no sources and very unconventional formatting has been ]ed with repeated reversals. More eyes might be helpful. ] (]) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
== '']'' ==


:Added {{t|uw-ew}} to the offending user's talk page. Sorry you've been caught up in this nonsense. ] (]/]) 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I encourage project members to review this newly-constructed article as well as its talk page. There are a few more sources needing to be incorporated into the article. Hopefully this will make a great addition to WikiProject Classical music and Misplaced Pages once completed and reviewed thoroughly. Thanks! --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 16:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


== Proposed split on Clavier Ubung III ==
==]==
There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page right now about the current title. Maybe you guys could enlight the situation a bit ! Thanks ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


I have proposed that we split the article on the ] by J.S. Bach into multiple sub articles. Please comment on the ] <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">]</span> &lt;]&bull;]&gt;</b></span> 01:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
Promising new article by a new editor. It's still a little rough around the edges, so any help with polishing it up would be appreciated. ] (]) 17:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Feedback on sheetmusicx.com links? ==
== ] ==


Over the past month, ] has been adding to various classical music articles links to a music publisher called SheetMusicX. They are a publisher of public domain material, similar to ] except that SheetMusicX is a for-profit business. Because this editor's recent edits consisted only of adding links to this publisher, it raised concerns of ]. The matter has since turned into a bit of a back and forth. Even in instances where I've added links to the official publishers of various scores, this editor insists on including links to SheetMusicX. They have told me that they simply want to share links to public domain scores, but again raises concerns.
While checking over work done by the VIAFbot and checking out the article on ], I discovered that Misplaced Pages encourages unique identifiers for recorded music using ]. In looking over the templates at MusicBrainz templates, it seems that it applies to recordings. Is it only popular recordings, or is classical music also involved? (I vaguely recalled someone posting about this here, but I can't find it in the archives.) -- ] (]) 20:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


Perhaps my perception of these links as spam is incorrect, for which I sincerely apologize. I've tried to talk over the matter with the other editor, but to no avail. I'd very much like to get feedback from other classical music editors on what they think about SheetMusicX and this user's recent edits. Thank you. —] (]) 07:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== Krzysztof Penderecki ==
:You have hounded every single edit I've made. I provided correct, neutral information in my contributions and always cited reliable sources. First you said the publisher was "obscure", turns out they are active for 15 years (several links were provided and you ignored it). IMSLP wasn't removed in favor of SheetMusicX, you were asked to make your edits without deleting other people's contributions. The same could be said of you removing SheetMusicX in favor of Fidelio Music, maybe you're affiliated with them? ] (]) 07:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::I don't see any value in adding a sentence to compositions like "The score was published by …" unless that is historically significant. Normally, an external link a publisher is enough. I only looked at 2 affected articles, a) ], and b) ]. In a), John added a sentence as described above, that didn't fit in the article's narration and it was reverted by CurryTime. A link to Boosey & Hawkes would have been preferable because their page also contains performance details. The situation at b) is much worse where the result of an edit war is the omission of (a slightly dubious) free handwritten score at IMSLP in favour of a $1,075 score at SheetmusicX. Again, I don't generally see any need to mention in an article's body the publisher(s); if their pages contain work details, they can be listed in external links. -- ] (]) 08:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I am planning to make ] an FA with the goal of making it a TFA on 23 November 2013, the composer's 80th anniversary of his birth. The discussion is at ]. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, ] (] - ]) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I noticed several reports for sheetmusicx.com at ], summarised in ]. -- ] (]) 08:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==
:::Situation b) wasn't an ommission of IMSLP, CurryTime removed what I added to include IMSLP only. I undid his edit and wrote in the comment section that he can make his contribution to the article without removing other people's contributions. He has been ] me and chases every edit I make, this has nothing to do with what I added but him feeling like he owns the articles and that users have to consult him beforehand. ] (]) 08:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The reason it sounds familiar is that it was the world's first classical LP. I don't suppose anyone has access to a copyrightfree picture? ...Though I'm imagining the cover was probably a brown paper sleeve. ] (]) 06:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
:Is there any reason this needs to be its own article instead of a couple of sentences in the article for the violin concerto and possibly for LP? ] (]) 07:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC) :::::You're right; it wasn't an omission but you removed the IMSLP link. I can't see how that puts your edit in a better light. -- ] (]) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Because I didn't click to remove IMSLP, I clicked to undo his edit, since he can add IMSLP to the article without deleting my contribution. He did the same a dozen times to my contributions for which he complained about the cited sources, and instead of discussing the source he removed everything. In some articles I included the full orchestration, he just wiped it and moved on to my other contributions and did the exact same thing, that had nothing to do with the sources I used or "I'm wiping it in good faith".
::Hi Melodia Chaconne, depends where one's interest lies I suppose. For example what do you consider is most notable out of en.wp's 100 or so classical album articles? ] (]) 10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::He will likely complain that I touched ], because apparently Shostakovich articles belong to him and nobody can touch it without his consent. Boosey & Hawkes showed there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. MAPESU Music showed there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. I have the score on my hand, there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. ] doesn't like sources that aren't his own much less on his well guarded articles. ] (]) 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Spam is spam. Stop spamming pages with unaffiliated commercial sites. If you keep making spammy edits, it's not hounding to follow you to remove them. ] (]) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:::::A link to the publisher isn't spam, just because he called it spam doesn't make it so, it added relevant information for each article. It's ] and ], it doesn't get more verifiable than a publisher of the work in question. ] (]) 13:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::Links to commercial publishers are almost always spam, unless it's of historical significance or they are the copyright holders. Works without copyright are available on scores ({{small|SCNR}}) of web sites. Incidentally and apropos Waxman, all your edits, except one, since 23 November 2024 consisted of adding links to SheetmusicX – that's what we call a ]. I am not suggesting you have a ], but you clearly conduct ] of sorts, and most editors take a dim view of that. -- ] (]) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Just created this article, based on this afternoon's nice concert at Carnegie Hall. It's a little rough, but I need to get to sleep - perhaps others can neaten it. Thanks! He's really a good violinist. -- ] (]) 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I took a look at the edit record and I definitely come down on the side of CurryTime, Michael Bednarek, and Melodia Chaconne. WP has to defend itself against commercial exploitation, so perhaps the admin authorities might consider a block if this continues. ] (]) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

== CfD nomination of ] ==

''']''' has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the ''']''' on the ] page.--] (]) 12:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

== Help needed at ] ==

A first-time editor could use some help as to establishing notability for this Chinese classical pianist and composer. Thanks for any assistance, or stance as to whether this figure can meet ]. ] (]) 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
==]==
cf. Billboard 2006 ''"On the Top Classical Crossover Albums chart, a trio of familiar acts dominates the top places. ]'s "Amore" (Sugar/ Decca) takes the top spot, followed by three albums by ] (Syco/Columbia): "Ancora," "The Christmas ..'' etc. the term classical crossover is distinct enough in the record industry to have a chart. The subarticle ] mentions ] as an example, but ] doesn't have a genre tag ]. Should there be this category? (] does exist) ] (]) 06:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
:Go for it: I don't see why not. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
::Okay, I will proceed with caution. Will err on the side of considering anything borderline as straight classical at the first run-through. ] (]) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

== Edit-warring at ] ==

Members may want to provide input at . ] (]) 15:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
:Resolved by a couple of admins. ] (]) 18:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

== Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles? ==

I was looking at the article on Mozart's piano concerto no. 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/Piano_Concerto_No._19_%28Mozart%29), trying to determine if a supposed recording of it by Wanda Landowska is real or mythical. But, alas, no listing of famous and/or recommended recordings. In fact, no discussion at all of recordings of the piece.

This is a serious omission. I suggest that all single-composition articles include such a section. For example, for Mozart's piano concerto no. 19, some of the entries would look like these:

* George Szell (cond), Rudolf Serkin (pf), Columbia Symphony Orchestra - Columbia, 1961
* Neville Marriner (cond), Alfred Brendel (pf), Academy of St. Martin's in the Fields - Philips, 1971
* Alexander Schneider (cond), Peter Serkin (pf), English Chamber Orchestra - RCA, 1974
* Murray Perahia (cond & pf), English Chamber Orchestra - Columbia, ca. 1984

Note that in this example, names are spelled out in full, the part taken by each performer is specified, and the year of the recording and the company that '''originally''' made it are given. Entries are in chronological order, oldest to newest.

Given that many important recordings have been released multiple times in both the LP and the CD eras, also that downloads are gradually displacing physical media as the primary distribution channel for classical music, inclusion of specific catalog numbers would be to no real purpose. Readers wanting to acquire this or that recording can turn to Amazon or any similar online source for details of which recordings are available in what form.

Undoubtedly, enthusiasts for obscure musicians of cult status will add references to their recordings, even though neither the musician nor the recordings are of significance in the larger scheme of things, thereby cluttering up such references. I can also imagine someone with exaggerated opinions looking at the example list I provided above and deleting (say) the reference to the Perahia recording "because he's a turkey" or for some other specious reason, when the truth is that they simply dislike Perahia's recordings. My advice is not to worry about such issues until they actually become a problem, rather than try to make up a lot of rules in advance. Better that such a list be too long than too short - maybe!

] (]) 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

:"Selected discography" sections are found in many articles. ] and ] are the key guidelines here. ] (]) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

:''Should "recommended recordings" be added to Classical Music articles? '' -- the answer is no. Either an attempt at a complete listing of (professional) recordings should be made, or nothing should be. Misplaced Pages should '''certainly not''' be recommending anything. For more popular works, there'd be nothing wrong with splitting it out onto its own page. But even going beyond people's opinions of "that one sucks" or "this obscure recording is the bomb" the issue is that there's no authoritative sources on just what constitutes the 'best' recordings -- for everyone who might remove Parahia's recording, someone else might want to add Derek Han's. Why those four in this instance, outside the fact they are on ]s (and I use that term objectively as none of them are really major in the subjective sense these days)? What about, say, the first one recorded? First digital? First surround? First on a period piano? Maybe even first as part of a complete set? Any of those are probably far more worth noting. Yes obviously a lot of reviewers and publications have their favorites, but given how subjective anything is, there's no good way of distilling it into any sort of shortened list. ] (]) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

::Please. Have you not noticed that Misplaced Pages articles incorporate images, sound files, and "Further reading" sections? Your other point is contrary to ] and ]. ] (]) 21:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't see how images and sound files go against what I wrote. As for further reading, usually these are pretty comprehensive already given that most things don't have huge numbers of books written about them. As for going against RS? I fail to see how a comprehensive listing of recordings can possibly go against that. As for ], it doesn't even seem to really apply to this situation. I'm not even arguing that every single recording ever should be listed, but if you consider that in pop music pretty much every artist with a page has their entire discography listed, even albums that will never get pages, I don't see listing every recording that at least could be considered to be decently distributed should not be listed in the same fashion for classical works.
:::Let's put this another way - consider that there are currently 90 listings on ArkivMusic for Mozart's PC17. Even if 40 of the them are the same recording repackaged (a decent estimate given how many have the same performer, though I'd wager high), that's still 50 separate recordings of the piece available at one of the largest classical music retailers. That doesn't even get into ones no longer available, never released on CD, etc. Why should only 4 of those 50 be listed? And if not only those 4, how many? How DO we determine which ones get listed? Maybe ones performed by artists with their own WP page (I would guess the large majority)? Still, a red link doesn't mean they don't deserve a WP page, so even then.
:::I'm actually quite curious how you think it should be determined. But one thing is for sure, the trend toward only older recordings and/or only major labels is a very bad one. ] (]) 23:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
:"Recommended" is probably a phrase to avoid here, but notable recordings would add to an article, though only (of course) if they have reliable independent sources naming them as such, and I believe some music encyclopaedias do include such lists. This would also limit the number included in the article, but wouldn't preclude a separate list of all known published recordings. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.15em 0.15em 0.1em">]</span><span style="text-shadow:grey 0.25em 0.25em 0.12em"><sup>]</sup></span> 00:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
::I think that describes exactly the current practice, or at least its intent, with which I agree. -- ] (]) 10:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:::"Recommended" and "Noted" are words that imply a great deal of subjectivity. What I've seen that I like the most is: '''Selected Recordings'''. That relieves editors of the responsibility to find every recording, and if people feel strongly moved to add recordings, they are welcomed to do so. -- ] (]) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

== Under construction: Infobox Bach cantata or composition ==

Because the facts about any given cantata appear throughout the article, I thought about an infobox, first just for cantata, then: it might be useful for other works by Bach as well. I tried it on one, ], comments welcome. It might be expanded to more details about the included chorales, for example, more variables might be needed if not only for cantatas. I suggest not to use a picture of Bach - he looks too old for most of his works, but show the building of the (likely) premiere, to give a feeling for the time. --] (]) 11:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
:For clicking convenience: the template there is {{Tl|Infobox Bach composition}}; there's also {{Tl|Infobox Bach cantata}}. -- ] (]) 12:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:I won't comment on the use of an infobox itself, but I noticed that the ''location'' field seems a bit isolated – I originally was unsure about which location it referred to (at first glance). Maybe include it in the ''premiere'' field: 26 December 1723, ]. As for the image, maybe use the original manuscript if available? Just my 2¢. ] (]) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for the links, "Bach cantata" was the first attempt, I would like to look at the other one for now. The image is open to whatever the one likes who uses the template, score sounds lovely. The documentation should explain these things, but perhaps let's collect thoughts on the variables first. There will be pieces which were never premiered (or we don't know when/where), like the ], "location" is for those, could perhaps left blank (not appear) if location of the premiere is known and listed behind the date. I wonder if - instead of today's Leipzig and Weimar - we should link to the related passages in the composer's biography, perhaps with a redirect "]", --] (]) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:::My attitude towards infoboxes has changed. Where I was once negative about them, after it was explained to me that infoboxes are important because they create structured data for when Misplaced Pages is used as data (i.e. Wikidata, DBPedia, etc.), then I became all for them (and for more structured data on WP in general). So sure, more of them is a good thing. -- ] (]) 13:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

::::As I live on examples, I tried a motet also, ], with a score pic, --] (]) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Added - for variety: ] (Weimar) and ] (chorale cantate). In ], I felt the necessity to mention 36a, 36b, 36c - how? --] (]) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::Starting with Bach cantatas is kind of difficult. For associated works, perhaps you can have a field "related works." I think the real problem are the chorales. Sometimes Bach uses words of subsequent verses for the name of the chorale even though the music is known by the first verse (which is also usually but not always the name of the cantata). In some cases we know the tunes are pre-extant, in others they're unknown or possibly composed by Bach. Maybe two fields: "name of chorale" and "source of chorale"? -- ] (]) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} If there is to be an image in a template, I think the standard 1749 portrait is probably the best. Unfortunately it's the only verified portrait. The modern Thomaskirche is a bit misleading for example: there's an older image from a painting made prior to remodelling in C-U III. The images that you use are fine in the main body with annotation. For example see ], my own effort: I now know how to extract higher resolution images of autograph scores from the Leipzig Bach archive, so would consider updating those images. Compare the high-resolution image of the autograph score of BWV 622 in OB. ] ] (]) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Chorales: I think the box is not there to show which stanza of who's chorale was quoted or paraphrased in which movement (the text does that), but can link to used chorales or their authors.
:::::::Images: which older Thomas would you suggest? (I didn't take Nikolai because the remodelling was even more "off", compared to Bach's time.) Bach in 1749 is much too old for most cantatas ;) - also almost everybody knows that picture already. More score images would be great, infobox or not. I love BWV 105! --] (]) 23:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The image is here.] BWV 105 is one of my favourites. I'm not honestly sure about info boxes. Incidentally, a new large volume has appeared on the Bach cantatas in French. I got a copy but have not really had time to compare it to Durr. ] (]) 00:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for the pic and pointing out the new book! I will use the pic and see what others think. - I have a history of reverting infoboxes myself ;) - But as said above: the bits on scoring and chorales (to name just two) are too much for a prose lead and too distant in an article. I will try to implement something like related works - which can be "base" or "base for", and wonder about key(s) , because for some it's what the piece is known by (Missa in F major), for complex works there are many, --] (]) 07:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Both 19th century pic and related works now on ], --] (]) 07:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I like this a lot! Brava! -- ] (]) 13:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We've discuss infoboxes in classical music articles ad nauseam. I still think they are a terrible idea (Briefly: they put trivia up front, distract readers from what is important, force distortion of facts to fit template, and attract edits from people who don't know the topic) and I don't see any reason that a Bach infobox would be any different. ] (]) 18:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:Did you look? I added one more sample ]. Repeating: for a complex work, such as a cantata, relevant information appears in different sections of the article, the scoring, Bible quotations, the poets of chorales, for example, --] (]) 23:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

== CfD ==

Just alerting anyone interested to ] about the recently created ]. --] ♬ ] 12:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

== Infoboxes (yet again). ==

Please see ] - ] (Andy Mabett) has used Boxing Day to commission a bot to remove the request on composers pages not to add an infobox: and moreover this has been effected within four hours without any formal notification to the project (or anywhere else). I hardly think this stealth operation is in the spirit of WP. Is it to be taken up with administrators?--] (]) 21:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

:Fairly disgraceful, in my opinion. ] (]) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
::If the editors who work on these pages had been consulted, perhaps the outcome would have been different. My personal preference would have been to modify the comment to something like "Please note that WikiProject Classical Music has recommended against adding Infoboxes to composer biographies." (with a link to a guideline giving the reasons why). I don't see that this would in anyway violate the RfC. But there was no discussion and this large scale edit appears to have been done essentially on the say-so of one editor and another gullible one. --] (]) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

:::Good heavens! I believe that the comment removal is just plain disgraceful. ] (] - ]) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Of course a full scale reversion kills all the other helpful edits the bot made as well. ] (]) 22:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::I am doing a massive revert of ''all'' of the bot's removal of comments regarding the infobox to classical music/composer/opera articles in the next couple of days. ] (] - ]) 23:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::That's a lot of work - about 480 edits. Can we not get the bot operator to do an automatic mass revert? I've put a comment on ]. --] (]) 23:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I'm also involved in manual reverting/restoring. ] (]) 00:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::::Same here. I am also taking the opportunity to add this comment to a few hundred composer articles lacking it. I've been meaning to do this for some time, so perhaps this wasn't an entirely useless exercise.—] (]) 00:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::Not to mention that Andy has posted at ]. ] (] - ]) 00:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::(ec)I agree that reverting 480 edits is a lot of work, and I can do an automatic revert to not waste anyone else's time. I appreciate the note on my talk page, before I do the reversion however I'll leave a message on the bot request page asking the users who supported the task to comment here. Robert.Allen your point is a valid one, would others also agree that updating the comment, if it is to exist, with a more helpful comment would be better? ]]] 00:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::By Jove, I think that will work. ] (] - ]) 01:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::::(ec) A request lodged during the holiday season on the 2nd day of Christmas, discussed between 5 editors, not notifying the classical music project, taken on, after a discussion lasting 5 hours, by a bot using an approval from February 2009 which takes a bit of a stretch to seem applicable to this task – all this makes assuming good faith quite a challenge. -- ] (]) 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I think it's been completed. ] (]) 01:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::(ec) I assure you that my intentions were good and can only apologise for my oversight in failing to notify this WikiProject of the bot's actions. Fortunately the bot was only editing a comment which is hidden from readers which means that we should be able to have a discussion here towards putting a better, more friendly comment (AGF, don't bite the newbies and all) on the page. Thinking long-term however, the Visual Editor, an initiative to get a WYSIWYG editor on-wiki may or may not show these comments when editing the page, is that something that needs to be considered too? ]]] 01:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::While we're at it, the article ] opposes infoboxes, yet has one. ] (]) 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::So it does! The comment asking people not to add one was already in place when the infobox was added on 21 February 2012. Should we remove the infobox? --] (]) 01:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::As there is no consensus for it on the talk page, I would remove it. ] (]) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Done! It didn't contain any information that wasn't already in the article elsewhere. --] (]) 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please help my understanding: I think an info-box should ONLY contain information that is in an article elsewhere, in a way that helps accessibility and simplifies finding essential facts. --] (]) 08:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:As others have said, it is often not possible to decide on '"essential facts" in the case of composers, e.g. ]. ] (]) 08:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::We agree, that it is often not possible to decide. But a statement above read almost as if it was wanted that the info-box contained information that was not in the article, I wanted to clarify. - Of course we need a possibility in an info-box saying that a date/name/authorship - you name it - is uncertain/debated. --] (]) 08:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The superior notice I came across is: "Before adding an infobox, please consult ] and seek consensus on this article's talk page." ] (]) 10:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:Very disappointing to see that a note that is clearly the opposite of our editing policy and has isolates the project by way of demonstration inappropriate ownership still being debate. Linking to a projects advice page that contradicts our policy and its-self is even worst. At some point the advice given by this project should be logical and represent our policy on the matter. We have many many many editors that at this point no longer place WikiProject Composer type template(s) on pages because they dont want this project aware of them - this is a very bad thing because the editors here are so good at what they do. ] (]) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::What are you talking about? ] is simply a different way of expressing the content of the guideline ]. And in this case, the consensus is found at ]. ] (]) 20:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I ran across this by accident, but am appalled. Wikiprojects do not ] articles and should not be doing anything like this. These comments will be removed. If you want to discuss appropriateness of infobox/no infobox on each individual article's talk page, that's what they're there for, but "Thou shalt not" comments are not appropriate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:Good Lord; please '''stop distorting ]'''! Please see my comment above, which shows that consensus has already been sought and achieved. ] (]) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

::That is not a "distortion" of ], this is a ''textbook case'' of ]. If you had one centralized discussion, and came to a "consensus" there (which I don't even see, by the way, but for the sake of argument let's presume you did), but you find that every time you take an infobox out people keep putting it back, that's a good indication that your ''local'' consensus does not match the ''global'' consensus, which is almost always in favor of an infobox in biographies. In such a case, the global consensus ultimately carries. That's not an indication to put a big "GO AWAY, THE PROJECT SAID NO!" sign on it, it's an indication to ''let people add them''. Wikiprojects don't get to make binding content decisions. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I'm not aware of any global consensus that mandates infoboxes. -- ] (]) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Written down as such? I doubt it (though I try to avoid the MOS, generally speaking, so there might be something in there). In practice, though (and policy is just codified practice, it's not prescriptive), it's widespread and longstanding practice to put infoboxes in biographical articles. If people from outside the project are trying to do that, it's unhelpful for project members to be stonewalling them, and most unhelpful to be putting hidden text forbidding them. That is not the Wikiproject's call to make, it is the ''community's''. I suspect that the hidden text was put in because people were adding infoboxes, indicating a desire from the community to have them there. Regardless, the previous RfC doesn't seem to have reached a strong consensus, was only lightly attended, and was some time ago. I propose a better-publicized RfC to gauge the feelings of the community as a whole, as clearly it is not as clear-cut as those here seem to believe. If the outcome of that RfC is a strong consensus to exclude infoboxes in these articles, the position will be much better-founded; if not, then it'll be settled too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Please no, spare me from a rule mandating crapboxes. ] (]) 07:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't think anyone said anything about ''mandating'' infoboxes. (Who would we force to write them?) What I'd like to get more input on is whether infoboxes should be ''prohibited'' on a certain type of article. If there's strong community support from outside this group for doing that, you'll have a much stronger case for what you're doing. That would be the purpose of an RfC. I'd be happy to work with you on the wording of the RfC request. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::What do infoboxes offer? They hardly do anything other than duplicate the lead, or present information not important enough for it, thus contradicting ]. ] (]) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) Who {{em|prohibts}} them? Some articles for composers and compositions do have infoboxes. Those that don't follow their local consensus. -- ] (]) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I dont understand why this project does not understand one of our most basic editing guides ] - it does not say ask a project permission before editing a page. This is a prime example of ] - Its one of the example give at ] of how not to behave. At ] no were does it say you must or must not have an infobox.........what it does say is each articles is different and consensus must be reached at each article.] (]) 17:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank god we finally got rid of this false hidden comment against infoboxes. It should be removed from any additional pages immediately. Those hidden comments were disruptive and misleading, informing editors on a prohibiton against infoboxes that doesn't exist. This project as, for years, disregarded community-wide consensus in favor of the consensus of a few select editors who dominate this project. Properly added infoboxes do not harm articles in any way, shape, or form. They only help readers such as myself obtain bare-bones information. The arguments against the infoboxes are silly; if material is incorrect or confusing it should be omitted, infoboxes do not "dumb down" articles nor should we force readers to read through articles to find basic facts. I feel a bit of the anti-infobox mentality here comes from a sense of pride, many of the editors who oppose infoboxes are hard working and create stellar articles. Infoboxes could encourage fact-skimming in lieu of a full reading. But we shouldn't force readers to read through our articles when they are looking for something basic. I am one of these readers who has been affected negatively by infoboxes. I look at many of our classical articles for basic facts and the lack of infoboxes on these articles is a hindrance to me as a reader. ''']]]''' 19:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:The hidden messages were all added back, actually. ] (]) 20:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::That`s very disappointing to hear since the message violates our polices on the matter - but then again so was the way they were removed (looks sneaky - even though its the right move). Perhaps a proper RfC on the matter will help.] (]) 22:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Not yet finished ===
Some of you may like to check out the "wonderful" conversation that has recently begun on ]. ] (]) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:Why is he edit-warring on ]? It doesn't seem like him. ] (]) 13:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

=== Example infobox for composers ===
As I said above, I live by examples, so tried how an infobox for a composer might look like on ], adapting {{tl|Infobox person}}. I miss parameters for publisher and label, --] (]) 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

:''Why''? Infoboxes are outstandingly ugly and merely duplicate information contained in the lead. Coupled with ], it is possible for an article to state an individual's date of birth '''four''' times. Kinda excessive, isn't it? ] (]) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::Why? You mean why I tried to visualize what remains abstract otherwise, at least to me? I like the function giving the age - just celebrated 50 ;) - To have key facts concentrated seems not excessive to me, rather helpful, --] (]) 19:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
::I added a few parameters to the existing infobox ], asking that someone who knows the subject better selects more relevant info, --] (]) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:::"Missing publisher and label"? How does that add to the understanding of the subject? -- ] (]) 03:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Wow. I inadvertently intruded on the the Wikiproject's holy ground some time ago and beat a hasty retreat. I'm delighted to see someone challenging the lockhold they have on "NO INFOBOXES." ] (]) 04:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Not helpful. People here have spent many thousands of hours building articles on classical music, and have largely agreed that infoboxes add little to them. If you have an argument otherwise, you may state it reasonably, but ratcheting up the rhetoric, throwing sarcasm at us, and expressing "delight" just make everything worse. ] ] 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::So how come nobody has weighed in on the fact that the request on the Harry Partch article for discussion and consensus was met by summary removal of the request and the uninvited imposition of an infobox?—] (]) 07:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The Harry Partch affair makes me sick. ] violated ] (see , , and ]), and then went to my talk page, and ''threatened'' to report me for "disruptive editing" if I remove the infobox he added to the article. The subsequent discussion showed that the user in question is not interested in achieving consensus—in spite of his "I'm a peaceful person" user page—, as you can see at . ] (]) 08:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Waking up to this: I found an infobox on the article that indeed had only rudimentary information which I think is not helpful to a reader who will have to decided at that point, entering the article, if he will read more or not. I asked to add - for example more of his notable works, but somebody who knows his works better should do this. I - as a reader - would be helped then, --] (]) 08:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::''Beware of unintended consequences.'' Are you ready to determine J.S. Bach's most notable works? -- ] (]) 08:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't dream of adding one for every composer, only where it might help. "Notable works" is not the same as "most notable works". If filled at all for Bach (but why, it's in the lead?), I would say something (with links) like Brandenburg concertos, cantatas, Passions, organ preludes, ouvertures, Wohltemperiertes Klavier, Mass in B-minor, - differentiating him from a composer of operas, string quartets and symphonies. - For Parch, the works don't appear in the lead, it would be more useful in his case to see a few, - he has striking titles I would like to see right away! --] (]) 08:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Organ chorale preludes, surely, not to forget the violin and keyboard partitas. But this is the impossible "]" question. At one point the ] article just had an internal link to the complete list of all his works lower down the article. The answer is quite subjective. For Ravel would it be the Bolero or Gaspard de la nuit? ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Please note that I didn't answer the desert island question, but think the reader would be helped by knowing what the composer stands for, Lieder for Hugo Wolf, for example, - much more needed for unknown people than those who everybody thinks he knows anyway, --] (]) 09:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Gerda is quite right (see above) that it is important "to have key facts concentrated". The way to do this is to write a well-crafted lead section. We now have a huge amount of experience showing that infoboxes fail at the task Gerda wants them to perform -- they inherently emphasize trivia, and they force editors to invent key "facts" when they aren't even facts (such as, which are the composer's greatest works). ] (]) 10:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Repeating: "most notable" is not the question, notable or characteristic is. I come from the Bach cantatas (see thread above): key, scoring, poets of lyrics and chorales, relationship to other works (based on/base for) seem no lead topics to me there. For a composer, "influenced by/influenced" seem no lead topics but useful to see connections. I installed an infobox and added to another to actually see what we are talking about, without "wanting" ;) --] (]) 10:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Hm. There are discussions of "greatest works" (which is essentially "reception") in the leads of FAs/GAs such as ], ], ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 10:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Wow. How '''''dare''''' people make ] edits to Misplaced Pages. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

==== Arbitrary break (Example infobox) ====

I am waiting for a clarification from ] but it is my understanding that - aside from aesthetic value (or lack of it), the true function of infoboxes is that they provide structured data for projects such as ], ], and other potential Semantic Web applications that will take advantage of Misplaced Pages. Most articles are just text--useless when being read by computers. But if it's marked up in a structured format (of which infoboxes provide a minimum), that makes the information harvestable for bigger projects. -- ] (]) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
:The true function of infoboxes at Misplaced Pages is to make pertinent details conveniently accessible to our readers. Some of the long-time editors of classical musical articles do not seem to realize their project is one very small part of a much larger project. It is not an enclave for snoots that expect every reader to read every carefully crafted word of a scholarly treatise; it's an encyclopedia that aims to serve a very broad public. Some of the public will appreciate long, detailed articles, and some want just the bare skeleton. The infobox is that bare skeleton. ] (]) 14:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::Just an aside (I don't edit in this area, though I have some interest), the use of infoboxes is becoming a standard across much of wikipedia. For areas where people are seeking basic information, they are very helpful. Much has improved in the last few years in terms of design and syntax. I think this project needs to move into the second decade of the 21st century in this respect; an infobox doesn't need to have all parameters included in every article, particularly if some are controversial or would lead to lengthy laundry lists (such as "notable works"), but that concern is an editing issue for the info box template itself, not whether the infobox itself should exist. For example, I recently worked on an article that is outside my general area of interest or expertise, (]) where another editor kindly entered the appropriate infobox for gems, and it contained a great deal of summary information that tightened up the text of the article itself, which went FA and was also TFA. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
::: You both fail to understand what the actual objection to these boxes is. Nobody objects to summarizing crucial information. However, summarizing such information in tabulated form in a box is helpful to readers only under certain conditions: there must be certain pieces of information that (a) can be reliably summarized in a few words, (b) are at least as easy to take in in the format of isolated tabulated words as in the format of prose text, (c) serve a significant role in characterizing basic aspects of the article topic, (d) occur predictably across a whole class of articles. Condition (d) is particularly important, because the whole idea of quickly finding information in a table relies on the fact that readers already know where and under what keyword to look for – if the reader first has to parse the box in order to understand what kinds of information it is going to offer him, then the box offers no advantage in reading speed over a piece of well-written prose. The consensus in this project is simply that for composer articles, no such set of information items exists that meets these conditions. ] ] 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
::::The "''consensus in this project''" is of ]. How many times must you all be ] before you accept it? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I find the infoboxes at classical composers articles rather confusing, determining the style/"era" was often incorrect and misleading, as far as I can remember. I think it is definitely better to offer a well written lead section mentioning all the specific explanations regarding their major works and stylistic character. It is better than oversimplified and often incorrect compartments labelled "classical", "romantic", "impressionist" etc. --] (] / ]) 12:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

#Infoboxes on WP are neither compulsory nor forbidden.
#The editors who align themselves with specific WikiProjects are likely to be amongst the most prolific, or indeed the most prolific, editors of topics covered by their project. They can not unreasonably be assumed to be amongst the better, or even best, informed on such topics in the overall Misplaced Pages community..
#If (to take an example at random) the editors on a WikiProject feel that Infoboxes are inappropriate (perhaps on the lines suggested by ] and ] above), they are likely to object if an individual or a pressure group including individuals, not associated with the Project, seek to change this consensus on an organised basis. And at the end of the day they may themselves seek to defend their attitudes and policies. This is in itself perhpas neither more, nor, less, reprehensible than the behaviour of those who seek to overthrow the consensus established by the Project. Such behaviour is called (among other things) ].
#Given 1) above, both 'having infoboxes' and 'not having infoboxes' are ]ish.
#But I submit that on the bases of continuity, good faith and other nice, warm and positive things, the views of WikiProjects should be accredited a certain moral authority over outsiders who wish to disrupt a consensus on the basis of a POV-interpretation of alleged Misplaced Pages 'principles'. It is true that the editors on a project may represent a minority of the Misplaced Pages community. But those who assail the views of such editors cannot prove that they themsleves represent a majority of this community. That is indeed why they typically justify their assaults by reference to supposed WP 'rules' or 'traditions' (or their intepretations of same), in lieu of reasoned argument or persuasion.

Editors working on a project normally have reasons, and often good reasons, for adopting or promoting specific policies. This applies in my view to the Classical Music project's views on infoboxes.--] (]) 13:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

:No. Such special pleading and "''accrediting a certain moral authority over outsiders''" is contrary to ]. ] ''called by this project'' reinforced that view. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

== Template:Infobox musical composition ==

I was ready to use ] but miss to add some basis parameters that I find in ] (under construction): key, number of movements, scoring, text, relation to other works ... --] (]) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

==Wikiproject notes in articles==
Pls see ] - The issues may be much bigger then just the note on the pages - However I believe the viability of the note its self is what we should talk about at this time.] (]) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:42, 2 January 2025

WikiProject Classical music was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 February 2011.
Shortcut

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconClassical music
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this page or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
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 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

"Notable" recordings

I often consult Misplaced Pages for factual information about classical music composers and compositions. I noticed that many articles about compositions have a section called "Notable recordings". I have been searching Misplaced Pages to find the criteria for what is considered a "notable" recording, but to no avail. Please enlighten me. 2A02:1810:2423:3700:836:4A9B:C7CB:89A4 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be asking the wrong question. Most notable recordings were put there by editors who either a) had favorite recordings they wanted to include, or b) had opinions on which recordings were notable. Better-written articles will cite sources that establish notability for a certain batch of recordings. For instance Frédéric Chopin#Recordings cites this NYT article, which is a collation of choices from various established music critics. Another example, Josquin des Prez#Skepticism and revision cites 1001 Classical Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die, a generally well-regarded publication.
So there's no Misplaced Pages criteria; we used reliable sources to establish notability, us usual, but given that millions of articles remain in a poor state, many do not follow suit. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
In articles I write, there's no "notable" nor "selected", but both words seem to indicate that the list is not complete, which may be a given for anyone with many recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
For context, the IP user is probably referring to this edit on the Symphony No. 4 (Brahms) article (which is a good edit), since it's the only edit I could find in the /64 range that looks related. Out of curiosity, I checked out some of the other symphony articles from the top section of the {{Johannes Brahms}} template, and couldn't find any other instances of "notable recordings". Without further context or explanation, this post at face value comes across as a grievance against the format of one individual article that probably was built by a less-experienced editor in terms of familiarity with encyclopedic structure and writing. That Symphony #4 section appeared to be just a random indiscriminate unsourced list, whereas the two examples cited above by Aza24 contain meaningful heavily-sourced encyclopedic prose. As to Gerda Arendt's point, if there are concerns about the inherent incompleteness of a certain list type, then it may be appropriate to use the {{dynamic list}} notice in such situations. Left guide (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Project members may want to participate in this discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Composers#Tabulating and ranking lists of composers – Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Chamber Music Northwest

Chamber Music Northwest has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in discussing or improving the article:

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Künstlerleben

Hi all,

Looking for someone from this WikiProject to have a look at Künstlerleben; the entire article appears to have been lifted from "original text by Peter Kemp, The Johann Strauss Society of Great Britain. Used with permission." Nowhere does the article say what this original text is or provide any lroof of permission so the article will need a total and complete rewrite (the article itself is very peacock-y and has no other sources at all).

It is very clearly a notable topic, being a Strauss II waltz, so I'm loathe to bring it to AfD which would have been my first call if notability was unclear. CoconutOctopus talk 19:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

When you added {{Copypaste}} to the article, you didn't specify |url=, so it's impossible to verify any copy/paste. As it stands, the article ought to be tagged with {{Unreferenced}} instead. As you mentioned, AfD is inappropriate. Similar to thousands of other articles, this one needs improving. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

FA edits

I noticed today an unusual amount of edits to composer's featured articles, many of them being the first edits from newly created accounts. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but seemed weird. See Carl Nielsen, Francis Poulenc, Hector Berlioz, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Robert Schumann...

Some edits do not seem to match the quality expected for a FA, hopefully a more experienced editor can take a look. Some have been already reverted. — Gor1995 𝄞 22:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I looked. For Poulenc, there was one edit of many changes, some good, others less so. I explained the problem to the new editor, saying that all might be reverted if they didn't fix the problems. Schumann: an IP at work, wanting to add Tchaikovsky's view. I reverted that once, but IP brought it back, and now someone else fixed small unrelated formatting errors which makes reverting more complicated. I'd appreciate if someone else did it. The other three articles looked under control when I checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
ps: the same IP tried similar things for Schumann's Paradise and the Peri. Please watch that also for returning attempts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Are these the edits made by the user Jevansen? They have made category changes to hundreds of articles.- 03:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup suitable for someone new to WP?

Hello everyone! I'm a pretty new editor with too much free time and a personal passion for classical music (I haven't formally studied it, though). Does anyone have any recommendations for getting started on improving WP's classical music coverage? Thanks, /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 22:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! After getting familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, a great way to start is by improving stub articles, specially on your favorite topics. Check out featured classical music articles for examples of high-quality work. You could also try fixing some articles with issues (see Tools to do the same for related Wikiprojects). — Gor1995 𝄞 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the tools! I suppose I'll just WP:BEBOLD and make some changes :) /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
A caution is that web material on classical music is often wrong or out of date. If you can access Grove Music Online through your public or university library, you will have access to a source that, although not always fully detailed, is usually pretty reliable. Failing that, searching on Google Books or Google Scholar will usually get you better material than just regular Google. I hope this helps. Opus33 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Proper movement titles of Tartini's 'Devil's Trill Sonata'

I am attempting to upload a recording of Tartini's 'Devil's Trill Sonata' (licensed under CC BY 3.0) to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used in the piece's Misplaced Pages article. However, I have encountered a problem: I'm not quite sure what the individual movements should be listed as.

I've cut the piece into its 4 movements, and I'd like to include the name of each movement in the corresponding file name, and changing a file name on Wikimedia Commons after it's been uploaded is a bit of a pain in the ass. But different sources give different descriptions of each movement.

The article on the piece lists the 4 movements (without citing a source) as: 

I. Larghetto ma non troppo
II. Allegro moderato
III. Andante
IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai

The 4 scores from IMSLP (1, 2, 3, 4) describe the 4 movements variously as: 

I. Larghetto affectuoso
II. Tempo guisto (presumably meant to be "giusto"; some also include "della Scuola Tartinista")
III. Andante
IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai — Adagio (sometimes with "Trillo del diavolo al pie de letto" or just "trillo del diavolo" mixed in)

The recording I'm using (linked above) lists (in the video itself, not timestamped) only 3 movements (combining movements 3 and 4) as: 

I. Larghetto ma non troppo
II. Allegro moderato
III. Grave — Allegro assai

And to top it all off, I left a comment on the video over a year ago (when I first found the recording) listing timestamps for 4 movements as: 

I. Larghetto affectuoso
II. Allegro
III. Grave
IV. Allegro assai

(Not sure what my source was for that comment; I thought I looked through a score on IMSLP to find them, but going back over them now, I guess not?)

Do any of you know what each movement should be called, or what would be the most accurate? I'm pretty sure movements that bounce between various tempos shouldn't have more than 3 tempo terms in the title, so is the Misplaced Pages title for movement 4 correct? What about the others?

Any help with this is greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Toast for Teddy (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The Decca Ring

I put together an article a couple of years ago about this milestone in the history of recording and was helped by advice here about how to title it. After a little buffing I've now put it up as a Good Article nominee. If any music lover who sees this would like to review it I'd be most grateful. Tim riley talk 12:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

My schedule will be become much freer around the 27th next week, so if no one else gets to it by then, I'd be happy to step in. Aza24 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Splendid! Thank you. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Tim riley talk 20:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

List of classical music composers by era

Dear colleagues, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of classical music composers by era. This list, with no sources and very unconventional formatting has been WP:BLARed with repeated reversals. More eyes might be helpful. Викидим (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Added {{uw-ew}} to the offending user's talk page. Sorry you've been caught up in this nonsense. /home/gracen/ (they/them) 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed split on Clavier Ubung III

I have proposed that we split the article on the Clavier-Übung III by J.S. Bach into multiple sub articles. Please comment on the talk page NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 01:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Henry VIII

Henry VIII has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on sheetmusicx.com links?

Over the past month, John40332 has been adding to various classical music articles links to a music publisher called SheetMusicX. They are a publisher of public domain material, similar to IMSLP except that SheetMusicX is a for-profit business. Because this editor's recent edits consisted only of adding links to this publisher, it raised concerns of WP:REFSPAM. The matter has since turned into a bit of a back and forth. Even in instances where I've added links to the official publishers of various scores, this editor insists on including links to SheetMusicX. They have told me that they simply want to share links to public domain scores, but edits such as this which remove IMSLP in favor of SheetMusicX again raises concerns.

Perhaps my perception of these links as spam is incorrect, for which I sincerely apologize. I've tried to talk over the matter with the other editor, but to no avail. I'd very much like to get feedback from other classical music editors on what they think about SheetMusicX and this user's recent edits. Thank you. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You have hounded every single edit I've made. I provided correct, neutral information in my contributions and always cited reliable sources. First you said the publisher was "obscure", turns out they are active for 15 years (several links were provided and you ignored it). IMSLP wasn't removed in favor of SheetMusicX, you were asked to make your edits without deleting other people's contributions. The same could be said of you removing SheetMusicX in favor of Fidelio Music, maybe you're affiliated with them? John40332 (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any value in adding a sentence to compositions like "The score was published by …" unless that is historically significant. Normally, an external link a publisher is enough. I only looked at 2 affected articles, a) Suite for Jazz Orchestra No. 1 (Shostakovich), and b) Carmen Fantasie (Waxman). In a), John added a sentence as described above, that didn't fit in the article's narration and it was reverted by CurryTime. A link to Boosey & Hawkes would have been preferable because their page also contains performance details. The situation at b) is much worse where the result of an edit war is the omission of (a slightly dubious) free handwritten score at IMSLP in favour of a $1,075 score at SheetmusicX. Again, I don't generally see any need to mention in an article's body the publisher(s); if their pages contain work details, they can be listed in external links. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed several reports for sheetmusicx.com at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, summarised in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/Local/sheetmusicx.com. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Situation b) wasn't an ommission of IMSLP, CurryTime removed what I added to include IMSLP only. I undid his edit and wrote in the comment section that he can make his contribution to the article without removing other people's contributions. He has been WP:HOUNDING me and chases every edit I make, this has nothing to do with what I added but him feeling like he owns the articles and that users have to consult him beforehand. John40332 (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
You're right; it wasn't an omission but you removed the IMSLP link. I can't see how that puts your edit in a better light. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Because I didn't click to remove IMSLP, I clicked to undo his edit, since he can add IMSLP to the article without deleting my contribution. He did the same a dozen times to my contributions for which he complained about the cited sources, and instead of discussing the source he removed everything. In some articles I included the full orchestration, he just wiped it and moved on to my other contributions and did the exact same thing, that had nothing to do with the sources I used or "I'm wiping it in good faith".
He will likely complain that I touched Tahiti Trot, because apparently Shostakovich articles belong to him and nobody can touch it without his consent. Boosey & Hawkes showed there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. MAPESU Music showed there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. I have the score on my hand, there's 1 Flute, 1 Piccolo. CurryTime7-24 doesn't like sources that aren't his own much less on his well guarded articles. John40332 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Spam is spam. Stop spamming pages with unaffiliated commercial sites. If you keep making spammy edits, it's not hounding to follow you to remove them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
A link to the publisher isn't spam, just because he called it spam doesn't make it so, it added relevant information for each article. It's WP:PUBLISHED and WP:SOURCEDEF, it doesn't get more verifiable than a publisher of the work in question. John40332 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Links to commercial publishers are almost always spam, unless it's of historical significance or they are the copyright holders. Works without copyright are available on scores (SCNR) of web sites. Incidentally and apropos Waxman, all your edits, except one, since 23 November 2024 consisted of adding links to SheetmusicX – that's what we call a single-purpose account. I am not suggesting you have a conflict of interest, but you clearly conduct advocacy of sorts, and most editors take a dim view of that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I took a look at the edit record and I definitely come down on the side of CurryTime, Michael Bednarek, and Melodia Chaconne. WP has to defend itself against commercial exploitation, so perhaps the admin authorities might consider a block if this continues. Opus33 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: