| Revision as of 15:35, 30 March 2013 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,672 edits →Infoboxes in composition articles: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:20, 23 January 2025 edit undoNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users233,512 edits re | ||
| 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}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| I would like to bring this article up to at least GA, preferably FA, during this year, CVA's bicentenary . All comments/contributions/suggestions welcome.--] (]) 08:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 75K | |||
| |counter = 81 | |||
| == Orchestra infobox: proposal == | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| All the main orchestra articles at present use the ugly pop music ''']''', with fields more suitable for individual musicians such as 'genres', 'occupations', 'associated acts', 'origin', 'years active', 'notable instruments'. | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| <small>See: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc.</small> | |||
| Perhaps it's time to do something to cleanup the appearance and the accuracy of these articles? I propose we make a dedicated '''Infobox orchestra''' with appropriate fields. Is that OK? I know many of us dislike boxes for biographies, but institutions should be a lot less controversial. It might be helpful if people could agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with the box if the project was interested in going ahead with this. Thank you. '']]'' 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - I think that's a good concept and if we can create an infobox for orchestras, it will definitely work for us. ] (] - ]) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per proposal. ] (]) 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - would certainly be a great improvement on current situation. But please don't make it too enormous! (Maybe date founded/founder/home town where not in title/base concert hall if any/present lead conductor/website?)--] (]) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' I suggest to first look if existing infoboxes don't cover the requirements, for example {{tl|Infobox organisation}}, or can be expanded to meet them, also compare {{tl|Infobox choir}}, for ], --] (]) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **I've proposed a box ''specially'' for orchestras, Gerda. If the proposal is accepted, we can discuss here what fields it will have. '']]'' 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Why not update the documentation for the existing infobox, indicating which fields are not suitable for orchestras? Of the parameters you list, (place of) origin may be relevant, for orchestras with no place name in their own name; as might years active, for defunct orchestras, while a year of foundation is needed for those still active. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' We definitely need this infobox. •••] (]–]) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Fields for infobox orchestra=== | |||
| We have a consensus for a new box — which I hope won’t be disrupted — so what design and what fields are appropriate? My suggestion would be to use the 'clean design' of ] (pale grey tint with black hairline boxing). Per ] above, fields could be: | |||
| *date founded | |||
| *founder | |||
| *home city (if not in title) | |||
| *home concert hall | |||
| *principal conductor | |||
| *<s>famous instruments</s> | |||
| *website | |||
| I’ve added ‘famous instruments’ to Smerus’s list because a number of mainly American orchestra articles list Stradivarius instruments, organs etc, see for example ]. However we could leave that out, or put the info in a separate box, if people think the infobox would be too busy. | |||
| Please comment if you think any of the fields should be omitted, or if extra ones should be added. Thanks! '']]'' 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Asking as someone having no knowledge, I would have assumed the instruments were generally the property of the individual musicians rather than the orchestra. (Obviously not an organ.) I take it this is wrong? ] (]) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) See ] for owners of some instruments. I think this might be complicated with some instruments owned by foundations etc. Obviously any info we include would have to be checked. --'']]'' 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think listing instruments owned would count as trivia. It's not a widely known fact about any orchestra (whereas the identity of the music director and the name of the concert hall is). It also can't make that much difference to the sound of the orchestra; most musicians play their own instruments. So let's leave it out. ] (]) 03:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Strongly agree with Opus33. ] (]) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fair enough. I'll strike it out for now. '']]'' 03:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about particularly important previous principal conductors, and dates? Szell Cleveland, Karajan Philharmonia, etc? -- Munch, Koussevitzy, Bernstein -- too much clutter? And isn't it likely that "founders" are <s>unknown</s> obscure names? ] (]) 03:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I withdraw my own suggestion about prior conductors. These should be listed in the text. But what about "founders"? I would relegate these to a text mention. Or, what is a "founder"? Occasionally a conductor will decide to create an orchestra for his own use, but generally it's some civic leader with a gleam in his eye, who acts as organizer and fund-raiser, and hires a conductor. ] (]) 03:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Suggested fields (edited to strike guest conductors): | |||
| #home city (if not in title) | |||
| #date founded (and date disbanded, if defunct) | |||
| #home concert hall | |||
| #principal conductor | |||
| :*<s>''principal'' guest conductors, if any, no more than two at most (? this is probably asking for trouble)</s> | |||
| :5. website | |||
| All significant prior principal conductors should be listed, with dates, in the text. The term "]" should not be used, because a principal conductor may not have been officially designated as such -- cf. ] early history. | |||
| ] (]) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{Infobox person | |||
| | name = Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie | |||
| | residence = ] | |||
| | years_active = {{Flatlist| | |||
| * {{nowrap|{{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1953}}|end_date={{End date|1955}}|location=]}}}} | |||
| * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|2006}}|end_date={{End date|2009}}|location=]}} | |||
| * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|2010}}|end_date=present|location=]}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Collapsible list|title=other conductors |1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Classical music}} | |||
| {{plain list|1= | |||
| * {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1950}}|end_date={{End date|1952}}|location=]}} | |||
| * {{nowrap|{{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1959}}|end_date={{End date|1960}}|location=]}}}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes|style=width:300px;|age=90}} | |||
| }} | |||
| | known_for = concert tours to {{Flatlist| | |||
| * Japan | |||
| * Italy | |||
| * Switzerland | |||
| * United States | |||
| }} | |||
| | module = serving {{Flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }} | |||
| }} | |||
| ::Comments: | |||
| ::*The home city should be mentioned even if it is part of the title. | |||
| ::*Conductors: the current conductor and important predecessors could be listed open, other former ones in a collapsed list. For example: ] (In the real article, I would list all with an article.) | |||
| :::--] (]) 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Re. principal guest conductors, and Milkunderwood's remark, "this is probably asking for trouble": Yup! Deciding which guest conductors are "principal" is a judgment call, often nuanced, and so properly addressed with prose in the article itself. One of the problems infoboxes cause is that they encourage editors to make all-or-nothing snap decisions on nuanced topics. I think if "principal guest conductor" is removed, an infobox containing the remaining five fields would not be likely to cause too much trouble. ] (]) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec) (revised below) ] (]) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::We are at the beginning of a discussion, right, offering options. We could list all conductors, list all with an article, or highlight a few and collapse others, then again: others could be all others, all others with an article, selected others. - It's only an attempt to show possibilities, --] (]) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(ec) Yes, of course Gerda - we are just throwing out ideas. Here is the way I was trying to revise my paragraph above: | |||
| :::::It occurs to me the same criticism applies to Gerda's example, where she specifies "important" predecesors, skipping some years as presumably unimportant(?). Further, there's no point in saying the Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc, orchestras are located in those cities - that's just clutter. NWD would fall under Kleinzach's exception. Also, NWD is different from most orchestras in "serving" a region rather than being located in a large city. Attendees may come from all over the world, to any orchestra. And I disagree with including tours in an info box. Let's keep it simple. What would be helpful would be to list the types of information that may be useful to discuss in the article, ''as opposed to'' putting it in the infobox. ] (]) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Well, in a separate conversation on our userpages, Gerda has raised the issue of infoboxes needing certain information being specified for the purpose of inclusion of metadata, which I know nothing at all about. This would put the whole topic in a different light. ] (]) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| For orchestras whose name is not in English, a parameter for {{para|name_lang}}, to take the two-letter ISO code (such as <code>de</code> for German). This would not be displayed, but applied using {{Tl|lang}}. I can provide markup if necessary. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Re 'metadata': this is a red herring, as far as I can gather from discussions about infoboxes in other arenas. Maybe Gerda has got the wrong end of the stick. Metadata ''may'' be linked to infoboxes, but don't ''have to be'' (and vice versa). It's a quite separate topic, and shouldn't be allowed to muddy the waters of this discussion, which otherwise could risk becoming yet another attempt by fanatics to slap infoboxes on everything in sight by falsely citing metadata and other little-understood topics as excuses for global standardization. There seems to be some consensus here on orchestras; let's not put it at risk by seeking to broaden the issue. Oh, and of course keep doubtful topics sch as 'guest conductors' and trivia such as tours out of any orchestra box. ]--] (]) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry, I didn't mention the word you don't like, and told you, Milkunderwood, better not to do so (on my talk), and certainly hoped if doing so my name was not mentioned. - I didn't raise a stick, so can't drop it ;) - I could begin a template on a user page, to be edited by all until we are happy, - perhaps easier than showing too many examples here, --] (]) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No offense intended. If there's a controversy, I know nothing about it. I certainly agree with Smerus, to keep it as simple as possible, which I thought had been illustrated in my (amended) five fields. ] (]) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've never before had occasion to look at an infobox template, but looking now at ], this mess is exactly what we are trying to avoid here - it has fields for every conceivable item of information. Would it help for this ] to specifically say in the explanation that fields should not be expanded, and additional information such as should be listed, mentioned, or discussed only in the text of the article? ] (]) 22:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fields don't have to be filled, of course, --] (]) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But this is the whole point - if the fields are there, people '''''will''''' fill them. ] (]) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| A latecomer as usual, I do support the proposal, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, something specific: might it be useful to add a line for former names or predecessor organizations? I'm thinking in particular of the George Enescu Philharmonic, formerly the Bucharest Philharmonic, and what today we call the New York Philharmonic, which until sometime in the early '50s or so was The Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra of New York, derived from merger during the Great Depression of the New York Philharmonic and the New York Symphony. Seems to me that's the sort of "un-nuanced," purely factual information that a "quick glance" user, say, somebody coming to Misplaced Pages because confused by dueling Toscanini reissues citing different names for the same organization, might be grateful to have presented without need to resort to the text. Second, and rather more generally, might we do well, before going much further, to take a look at a cross section of the orchestra articles and systematically assess what pitfalls they may present and how well the proposals to date would deal with them? Better to chase out potential problems now, I think, than to discover them after the box has come into being. ] (]) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :And a couple of others that might bear consideration (sorry if somehow I missed them earlier): what about, for want of a better term, "type": broadcast (e.g., NBC Symphony), concert (e.g., Philadelphia Orchestra), recording (e.g., Philharmonia Orchestra), etc.? And what about record labels? ] (]) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::To me these are both very interesting ideas. The first, concerning different names, I agree would be important to include in an infobox for the reason given. Concerning "type", first, all three categories suggested did make recordings. I had not been aware that the Philharmonia did not give live performances. And I wonder if these might be difficult to reference. (Note that at the top of the major section on his proposal, Kleinzach listed a number of orchestras for reference in this discussion.) ] (]) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Summary=== | |||
| Thank you everybody. I think we have some agreement about essential fields and some good ideas for optional fields. ''Without'' making any final decisions on these, I've gone ahead and created: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| These will require tech checks before they are usable. Can we continue discussions about fields at ''']'''? '']]'' 03:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! --] (]) 07:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Followup: 'Native name' field=== | |||
| Unfortunately changes are already being made to the box without discussion, see and . | |||
| We now have a field called 'Native name' which no-one asked for! (The name of the orchestra is now sometimes in more than one language, i.e. English and the 'original'!) etc. (We also have microformats, coordinates etc.). It's a pity because these changes are being made before the setup is even finished (which can't be done in userspace). I had asked ] to look at it. --'']]'' 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :(I was not involved but would assume that) for the Vienna Philharmonic, there should be a parameter saying that they call themselves "Wiener Philharmoniker", and the information that this is German. - I didn't know that anything is ever "finished" on WP. --] (]) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Gerda, do you really want to see the 'original name Vs English name' can of worms re-opened? Don't you realise that many editors want ''all'' German names to be translated into English? --'']]'' 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I observe names such as ] which I hope will not be translated, and I see that in some cases you could not deduct the original name from a translation, for example "Symphony" could have been Sinfoniker, Symphoniker, Sinfonieorchester, - and some names are awfully similar: ] is the ''WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln'', until the 1990s ''Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester'', but there's also a different orchestra, '']'', which is a wrong redirect at present, it should be a translation of '']''. To make it short: these names are the worms, not the discussion, and if you go to the native names you are safer, --] (]) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This has got ''nothing'' to do with infoboxes. Wrong redirects etc. should of course be corrected. No-one is disagreeing with you about this. --'']]'' 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I put it back to the last version edited by Kleinzach, considering this a case of simple vandalism. I apologize to editor Frietjes for the collateral damage. ] (]) 16:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't say it was vandalism. Gerda pointed out to that editor that the box might be a "fork" , and he was trying to improve it by bringing the code in line with other boxes of that type. Some of it is an improvement in its mechanics. The "native name" field is debatable. ] (]) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wrote ''"These will require tech checks before they are usable."'' That was disregarded. 'That editor' (who many of us think should be topic banned, see ) characteristically went in and took pre-emptive action to get what he wanted included in the box, including the language stuff. Obviously ''not everything'' he did was bad, but that's hardly the point. '']]'' 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yep, I know who 'that editor' is. The way he made the changes was not at all collegiate, but not vandalism either. ] (]) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I support Voceditore's view, --] (]) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really? ] (]) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are we are being a little naive here? 'That editor' wrote: ''"This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course)."'' . So he's determined to inflate the number of fields until the new box matches the trivia of the pop music one, contrary to the intentions of everybody here (except possibly our poor Gerda who thinks this is about Germany-language titles!). Are we all ready for another huge-waste-of-time edit war? ''"Not at all collegiate"'' yes, well . . .'']]'' 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Naive? No. Disingenuous? Yes. I said nothing about "''trivia''". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Opus33 should be aware that false accusations of vandalism are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. I invite him to strike that comment. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As also noted on the template's talk page, there is no requirement for prior discussion before changes are made, especially to a ''draft'' temp]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, is ] WP's standard format for other-language orchestra/chamber groups? ] (]) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :We are probably the most German-friendly group of editors on WP — Gerda please note — but that might be pushing it. --'']]'' 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Appreciating your friendliness, I started a new thread for this topic, --] (]) 10:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Guideline=== | |||
| Can we add a short paragraph to our guidelines about orchestra infoboxes as follows? | |||
| ''A dedicated infobox for orchestras is available. This is called <nowiki>{{Infobox orchestra}}</nowiki> and is available at ]. (As noted elsewhere, the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.)'' | |||
| Thanks. '']]'' 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The first two sentences can be shortened to: "A dedicated infobox, {{tl|Infobox orchestra}}, is available." <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Native name fields again added=== | |||
| The native name fields have ''again'' been added to the template. As there is no significant support for these fields (adding invented translated names of orchestras that don't have official English names) I've reverted. It really is difficult to develop bona fide info boxes for CM articles when this kind of thing is going on. This again illustrates why so many of us think the attempt to work on fit for purpose boxes is counter-productive. (And yes, ''the same editor'', is of course involved here.) '']]'' 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :For the second time today these fields have been added. . --'']]'' 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == TFD for collapsed infobox code == | |||
| The ''']''' discussed during the past few days at ] has been sent to Templates for discussion (''or rather deletion''), see ''' ]'''. --'']]'' 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The code collapsing complete sections is discussed, - collapsing lists within a parameter is not discussed, --] (]) 09:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Leo Mouravieff (?) == | |||
| Has anyone ever heard of a Russian composer whose transliterated name might be ''Leo Mouravieff'' or ''Leon Mouraviev'' , or perhaps ''Leo/Leon Muraviev/ff'' , without the "o"? According to a Vox Records CD, he was born in 1905. ] (]) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :According to : | |||
| ::"Leon Mouraviev was born in 1905 in Kiev, studied with Gliere, and later in Germany and France. He left the USSR in 1937, and lived in Paris until his death in 1987. His ''Nativiti'' is a rather dark, morose work for strings without much character." | |||
| :] (]) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Great - thanks very much for this info. I'm guessing that since he lived in France, the Leo<u>n</u> M<u>o</u>uraviev is the spelling he used there for his professional career. ] (]) 19:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn == | |||
| As pointed out, we have ], starting the lead with a translation, - strange. The orchestra abbreviates itself WKO, leaving out Heilbronn as the location. Heilbronn seems officially part of their name, but not commonly used, has a different colour and line on their web. - Do with it what you like, but make it consistent ;) --] (]) 10:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The official English name is ]. Should I move it? --'']]'' 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've now made the move. This means it's now searchable in both English and German. --'']]'' 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm torn. In general I prefer using "real" names - I'm a fanatic about using people's correct diacritics - but as long as there is an "official" name in English, for en:wp I think it ought to be moved, with all appropriate redirects. I had just stumbled across this one rather than going looking for an example. There are also names in French, which I'm not thinking of at the moment; and just now searching for ] I find ] which I'm sure was never used, and <s>in the lead</s> further down in the text is misspelled ''Orquest<u>'''r'''</u>a Pau Casals''. In sum, we should not be doing our own translating without good sources. ] (]) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The last point is important: we should never invent English titles that don't exist. That would be inviting ambiguity and misunderstandings. --'']]'' 04:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| "There are also names in French" - ] ??? ] (]) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. I've checked this one and (surprisingly) it doesn't have an English name. '']]'' 10:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thinking about it, I guess not so surprising after all - the Québécois wouldn't allow it. ] (]) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orquestra Pau Casals== | |||
| Kleinzach, I don't suppose you'd be willing to stick a hand into the Pau/Pablo imbroglio? That ] ought to be fixed. ] (]) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. BTW it's a Catalan/Spanish thing. '']]'' 11:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes - and very emotional. Thank you. ] (]) 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln == | |||
| Thanks for creating ]! Now we have one symphony orchestra of the station in German, one in English, long live internationality ;) --] (]) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln doesn't have an official English name as far as I can tell. --'']]'' 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think we always still need redirects from the '''full''' name in any case. ] (]) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, that's right. Redirects don't have to be correct, official, full or whatever. They just have to be practical. --'']]'' 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Chamber Music Northwest == | |||
| ::::Confusion: We have ] (which states '' The orchestra was founded in 1947 by Allied occupation authorities after World War II, as the orchestra of Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunk (NWDR; Northwest German Radio).'') And we also have ] (which seems to have generally a similar origin, but doesn't say so). Okay, so there are two different and separate WDR orchestras in Cologne. Now the "'''R'''" stands for "Rundfunk", but then that is repeated in the name: "WDR Rundfunk"? Is that right? ] (]) 10:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in discussing or improving the article: | |||
| :::::Yes, you can check this out on the official websites. ] is probably common in German. --'']]'' 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hey, good catch! I'd never encountered that term. ] (]) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| ::::::And ''both'' WDR orchestras were founded in 1947. There's something fishy about this history. There may be two distinct orchestras today, but I can't see the US Army establishing two separate radio orchestras in Köln right after the war, unless they had different purposes - and even so ... ] (]) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ---] <sub>(])</sub> 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Maybe there were too many unemployed musicians in Cologne and environs in 1947. And obviously radio was the only way of reaching an audience then. No one had food, much less transportation to a concert hall. ] (]) 10:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Künstlerleben == | |||
| ::::::: ''Music to Starve to Death By''? -- ] </sup></font>]] 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Not too far off - the Marshall Plan hadn't kicked in yet; it was pretty desperate. At least this was the American Zone, not the Russian. ] (]) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi all, | |||
| == ] demoted == | |||
| 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). | |||
| I've added the <nowiki>{{classical</nowiki> banner to the talk page of Gregorian chant which seems to have fallen through the cracks, just being busted down from Featured article to C class in a review which was not participated in by previous reviewers or editors of the article. ] (]) 19:32, 19 March 2013 (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) | |||
| == Vital articles == | |||
| :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 == | |||
| There is a discussion regarding which musician articles, if any, should be on ] . Your input would be appreciated. <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 21:54, 19 March 2013 (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 ], ], ], ], ]... | |||
| == Templates == | |||
| 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;">𝄞</span> 22:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have been looking at the ] at ]. Some of them have their works in a single template, some have their works in several different templates and some of them have no template enumerating their works. I am in pursuit of more consistency in this regard. Would people have a problem if I replaced separated templates with something like the following: | |||
| : 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) | |||
| {{User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Beethoven|3}} | |||
| : ps: the same IP tried similar things for Schumann's ]. Please watch that also for returning attempts. --] (]) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| --] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:26, 21 March 2013 (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) | |||
| :Why are the sections in reverse alphabetical order? Also why are the section headings duplicated? Perhaps ] should think a bit more about the design and come back to us when he has worked out what he is trying to do. --'']]'' 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reverse alphabetical was a coincidence. Now alphabetical. Working on alternate format.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Might this information be expressed better as an article than a template? I have in mind the fact that for many composers, some of the works are of doubtful authorship (for example, no is one sure whether Mozart wrote the Sinfonia Concertante for four wind instruments that is attributed to him). When you use a template, you have to make an either-or decision about whether a work belongs, but an article has the space to include appropriate commentary. ] (]) 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Oddly, although I may have created as many navboxes as anyone in WP history (see ]), I don't know what all the advantages are. There are at least two advantages to the templates over lists. One, it is at a glance, since in most cases the whole template fits on the screen. A list requires scrolling and scrolling to see the same presentation of available content. The second advantage is that the templates provide access with a single click rather than bouncing over to a list article before having to scroll around until you find what you are looking for. I am not sure how many other advantages there are but single-glance and single-click access to available related content are two worth noting.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 20:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleanup suitable for someone new to WP? == | |||
| ::Hello Tony, the tricky bit concerning template size is that many of the great composers were extremely prolific. If you look in the work-lists provided by the ], you'll find that they often go on for ''dozens of pages'', in fine print. So, a thorough-going template, especially as WP grows over time, would definitely not fit on a single page. As for the option of making a briefer selection of "most important works" -- this is a really serious judgment call, which if it is done at all, ought to be done by an experienced editor who has read multiple books about the composer and is familiar with what critics have said about the composer's work -- it's really not something that ought to be taken on by a visiting template-maker. | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::In sum, my feelings about these templates match those expressed by David below: for navigating within a genre for a particular composer, the templates are fine, but we really don't want to let them grow to the point that they overwhelm the articles to which they are attached. At the very least, perhaps you could take some of the really big templates you've done and adjust the default setting to "hide" rather than "show"? Yours very truly, ] (]) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (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;">𝄞</span> 01:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Following on from the above: can someone put in simple words exactly what purpose these templates serve? How do they help the reader understand the topic of the article to which they are affixed, or add to that uderstanding ? - exactly what perspectives they add to the article? It seems to me that TtT is undertaking a lot of work for something which ultimately adds no value either to the article or to Misplaced Pages - as regards Opus 33's comment, such articles already exist in 'List of....' formats, which give the opportunity to comment on authenticity, etc. Moreover, if templates of ''this'' type are felt to be appropriate, what happens if TtT or some other bright spark sarts creating and posting templates, e.g. listing all the instruments featured in a piece of music, or all the recordings of a piece of music, etc.? (Not, please God, that these should be taken as suggestions). It would help to have an agreed Project policy on this before the project articles are cluttered up with the paraphernalia of the bright ideas of editors who do not seem concerned with the topic of the project, but seem to be imbued rather with the urge of graffiti artists to paint on any available wall.--] (]) 20:17, 23 March 2013 (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) | |||
| ::This is the most snarky response that I have gotten to my efforts. At this point, I have created several templates for artists who previously had no templates. I have already deployed {{tl|Franz Lehár}}, {{tl|Jacques Offenbach}}, {{tl|Georges Bizet}}, {{tl|Giacomo Puccini}}, {{tl|Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{tl|George Frideric Handel}}, {{tl|Antonio Vivaldi}}, {{tl|Gioachino Rossini}}, {{tl|Maurice Ravel}} and {{tl|John Philip Sousa}}. I have already prepared and will soon deploy {{tl|Johann Strauss II}}, {{tl|Claude Debussy}} and {{tl|Claudio Monteverdi}}. So if you want me to stop you better say so. However, the people over at ] seem to be on board (and much more encouraging than the folks here) so we need to get our acts together. They seem to be reviewing these with some sort of priority as I am producing them. I don't know what you folks have against them. Basically, I have run out of operas to do so I am focussing more on composer templates. The only ones left are for more topical subjects such as {{tl|Book of Exodus}} or {{tl|Don Juan}}, which I recently created. There are about seven topical one left for me to do, but they take a lot more work than more specific work derivatives.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 20:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::: PS, be careful calling me ']y' , I am a ].] (]) 08:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Proper movement titles of Tartini's ']' == | |||
| :I love nav-templates. I probably made half of the member templates included in the uber template above. It allows for easy navigation between works of the same genre. There's extra formatting that you can put in that makes it look nicer than the category page. But I think the uber template is too much. Its cool that it can be done, but I don't want every Beethoven template transcluded into every Beethoven article. The current pattern of including just the same-genre template which includes a linek to ] is sufficient in my opinion. ] (]) 20:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ::I agree with the sentiments expressed above. There is a difference between a navbox for an opera composer, say Wagner, who wrote a limited number of big works, and a box for a composer, say Mozart, who wrote hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of all descriptions. For readers who want to search out particular, perhaps obscure, pieces of music by famous composers we have the 'Lists of compositions by . . . .' pages. So, while I am basically pro-Navbox, I also think they must be 'fit for purpose'. '']]'' 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::O.K. I will leave all the extant genre-specific templates alone. I may continue through the 45 composers at level 4 on the ] pages. If a composer has no templates whatsoever, I am likely to take a stab at one. If I find some genre-specific ones already exist for a composer, I will leave him alone.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 02:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::P.S. After a first pass of the list, these 9 are the ones that I am apt to create templates for: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and <s>]</s> <small>(won't do because of the G&S template)</small>. It also seems that maybe I should not have created the DeBussy template. I'll have to have a closer look at how many template are out there for his works.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 03:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am going to go ahead and deploy {{tl|Claude Debussy}} despite its overlap with {{tl|Debussy preludes}}.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *{{tl|Arnold Schoenberg}} is ready to be deployed. Feedback welcome.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Debussy L numbers=== | |||
| :: And, while I am at it, why the 'L' numbers in the Debussy template? - they seem intrusive and confusing, and are not habitually used or recognised by lay persons.--] (]) 08:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they different than opus numbers?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, but they serve a similar function, to identify each work by a unique numerical label. See ] for some details. -- ] </sup></font>]] 10:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My point here is that the L numbers don't add useful information to the templates, in fact they look rather confusing, especially to any reader who doesn't know what they are (probably 90%+++). Therefore they are counter-prductive as guides.--] (]) 10:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are also wrong, though Misplaced Pages for some reason doesn't have the updated list which is completely different (and just reuses numbers rather than, say, the Koechel catalog, so most numbers can refer to two different pieces). Honestly Tony, I understand you're trying to help and that's great, but when why are you bothering so much if you're not a 'classical music guy'? Doing stuff like putting the Ravel template on Pictures at an Exhibition is just ridiculous and really just makes Misplaced Pages look dumb. ] (]) 13:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::It seems that there is agreement that the people I am doing are important enought to have navboxes and many people even find them important enough to review as I post them. I don't think what I am doing is all wrong. Maybe each template is 10% wrong and easily fixed. Sure a classical music guy could get them 99% percent right and not even need to alert everyone to come check things out. I think the end result of me trying and the community helping is a benefit to WP. If I am bringing down the classical music project with my efforts, I will stop, totally. I already agreed to limit my efforts to the 8 composers who really need it. If even that limitation is not enough, I will stop with just the one more that overlaps with ] {{tl|Modest Mussorgsky}} and one personal favorite {{tl|Aram Khachaturian}}, since I grew up in Buffalo where the '']'' is a part of life (it is played after every ] goal). Would the classical folks prefer that I not even try to do ], ], ], and ]?--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I have removed the L numbers.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| **P.S. Librettists ], ], ] are also under consideration for templates.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ***P.P.S. I haven't yet made a short list of music performers. When I do it will come from level four at ]. It may also cross with the Classical Music Project.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| lists the 4 movements (without citing a source) as: | |||
| General: I think the navboxes are a great help! Please do more! - L numbers Debussy: I think the titles speak for themselves, this is different from Mozart's masses in C, where you need a number to differentiate several. Use numbers only when needed, as for Vivaldi for the two ''Orlando furioso'', and if using them don't start with a number, as you would not start with Op. --] (]) 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I. Larghetto ma non troppo | |||
| II. Allegro moderato | |||
| III. Andante | |||
| IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai | |||
| The 4 scores from IMSLP (, , , ) 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 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? | |||
| ===Schoenberg transcriptions=== | |||
| :: Why are the transcriptions thought to be significant here? There are not separate articles for these - although someone might in the future perhaps usefully do a generic article sometime for them en masse.--] (]) 08:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Remember, I am not a classical music guy. I was just summarizing what WP includes on his list of works. I can remove it if you think that would be an improvement.--]<small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: In my opinion they are absurdly excessive, but obviously it would be a help to have comments from others to get a consensus.--] (]) 10:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'll second the vote to remove the section. I do like a lot of the transcriptions, and its a prominent section of ] so I can see why Tony it, but they aren't his compositions and all the links point to pages for the parent works by the other composers. Plus removing that section creates a leaner template which is easier to read.] (]) 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Transcriptions removed.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Offenbach template=== | |||
| '''THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED AND MOVED TO ]'''.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Any help with this is greatly appreciated. | |||
| Why please is a there an overall header 'operettas', then divided in to opera bouffe, opera bouffon, etc., etc.? 'Operetta' as applied to Offenbach in English is a convenience term, not one used by the composer himself. The template (more or less accurately) lists these works by the composer's own terminology, so the overall header for these terms of 'operetta' is both superfluous and misleading. --] (]) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Convenience term: so is "cantata" for ]s, he termed only very few that way. I think I will stll use "cantata" for being understood, and don't expect the readers of Offenbach to be familiar enough with his terminology in French, - why not conveniently help them? --] (]) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well in fact you don't help them, Gerda, because not all of these Offenbach works are generally claissified as operettas - whereas all of Bach's works that you refer to are generally classified as cantatas, whether JSB actually called them such or not. The template is highly misleading as it suggests that there is consensus in calling all these Offenbach works 'operettas' - such concensus does not exist. Let me gently remind you that Misplaced Pages is here to report facts, not to 'create' them, however saintly the intention.--] (]) 10:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I don't know enough about Offenbach, was talking more generally, perhaps there should be a broader term for his works. - We know that there seems to be "consensus" to call some of Wagner's stage works operas although he argued against it, --] (]) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gerda, this is scarcely helpful. Maybe there should, in an ideal world, be a broader term for his works, maybe not. We are here in Misplaced Pages to report, not to speculate. TtT has taken it upon himslef to classify virtually all of Offenbach's output as 'operetta'. If neither he, nor you - nor anyone else - can produce an appropriate citation to support 'operetta' as applied to virtually the whole of Offenbach's works, then the assertion that they are all 'operettas' should be deleted. See ]. It's as simple as that. --] (]) 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure why all the ] are highlighted either. Differences between these types of genres are often subtle and open to interpretation (unless the composer strictly labeled them himself). That said, I'd leave the issue of Offenbach up to Opera wikiproject as the template is almost completely filled with stage works. At first glance it looks like it almost fully overlaps with their pre-existing infobox ]... but again, I'd leave it up to the other project.] (]) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Good idea, I will refer it.--] (]) 13:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::P.S. regarding the overlap, ] is having serious discussions about overhauling the infobox and standardizing navbox content in footer style templates, which is the more standard navbox style on WP.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. ] (]) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (e.c.) As the originator of most of the Offenbach material, I think I should explain some of the choices that were made in the past. First of all the composition list was/is called ''']'''. We were following most of the English language sources in using 'operetta' as an umbrella term. (Opérette couldn't be used because the meaning is much more specific in French). | |||
| == The Decca ''Ring'' == | |||
| The list gives the actual published genre designation used by the composer. These are explained to some extent in the ] (which I abandoned a couple of years ago after problems documented on the talk page). | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::'''THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED AND MOVED TO ]'''.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 14:04, 28 March 2013 (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) | |||
| == Compositions by year categories == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| Hi, I have just noticed that ] members are included within the appropriate ]; but ] are not, anyone know how fix this, Thanks ? ] (]) 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Other way round I think, but fixed now anyway.--] (]) 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fixed how? I think much more than {{Querylink|Category:Operas by year|qs=&diff=prev&oldid=547093476|this}} is required. I suspect GrahamHardy noticed that (almost) none of the member categories in ], e.g. ], are included in the respective ], in this case ]. Four such opera categories are categorised in the respective compositions-by-year category: ], ], ] and ]. Something ought to be done to ] to create the <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> automatically for every <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>; replacing | |||
| :::<code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> in ] with | |||
| :::<code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code> will probably do. I made a similar suggestion last June at ]. -- ] (]) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ah, I see, I misunderstood the comment - in fact the ] was not previously part of the ] --] (]) 10:45, 27 March 2013 (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) | |||
| == Pachelbel's Canon/Controversial move == | |||
| :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 notice that it has not been advertised either here or on the talk page of ], so I thought I should draw your attention to the discussion taking place at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed split on Clavier Ubung III == | |||
| == Quartettsatz Articles, a call for assistance. == | |||
| 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> <]•]></b></span> 01:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Since last year I've updated/revised or created several articles on incomplete chamber works by major composers. | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| * ] (Updated/Revised) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| * ] (Updated/Revised) | |||
| * ] (Created) | |||
| * ] (Created) | |||
| * ] (Created) | |||
| == Feedback on sheetmusicx.com links? == | |||
| I've been working from online resources including CD liner notes & concert notes where they are available, but I think that I've hit the limit of those. I'm planning to visit a major library soon to see what I can uncover about any of the above offline. If anyone has access to useful (& citeable) material about any of the above please feel free to add it to the pages. I've added notes in the talk pages of some of the articles to indicate questions I was unable to answer.] (]) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :nice work, thanks! Now what about ]'s 1905 'Langsamer Satz' for quartet?--] (]) 15:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll look into that one. I've also got (For anyone interested in a challenge.) three more obscure targets. | |||
| :::Is the Lansamer Satz incomplete? I actually thought he conceived it as a single-movement piece. --] (]) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * String Quartet Movement in B flat major (], 1903) - What appears to be his earliest composition for quartet. | |||
| * String Quartet Movement in A minor (Griffes, 1917) | |||
| * String Quartet Movement in C minor (]) - Found out about this one while researching the Schubert Quartettsatz, only one recording to my knowledge and the CD liner notes are not available online. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Currently, though I think I'll tackle one piece other of unfinished business, the Second Grieg string quartet (Two movements this time). | |||
| :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) | |||
| ] (]) 22:24, 29 March 2013 (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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::::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". | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :::::::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) | |||
| == ] has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| == Infoboxes in composition articles == | |||
| Hi all, ] has been ]. There has also been substantial discussion about the list on the talk page, so input from project members at AfD would be helpful. ] (]) 16:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi all, it would be great to hear a few opinions on the recent additions of infoboxes to classical composition articles (see {{tl|Infobox musical composition}} and ] for a usage example). | |||
| == Is it time for individual articles on the Brahms clarinet sonatas? == | |||
| I personally think it's not /hugely/ necessary. It contains the sort of metadata that should be in the introduction (eg composition date, key, instrumentation) or at the very least within the article somewhere. I see the necessity of {{tl|infobox song}} in non-classical song articles, where record label etc information might not be repeated within the article - but the musical composition parameters cover the sort of information that are inherent in any discussion of the composition and any prose about the composition. | |||
| ] was created in 2004; as far as I know, before this post a split was never been discussed. I believe this combined article is an inferior format for the sonatas and should be split. Although their genesis overlaps, the music is different enough to justify separation. To quote {{noping|Camembert}} in 2005, this wasn't intended as a permanent solution: "]." After some research on the wealth of sourcing available, I believe a comprehensive article on each could easily run into 3000+ words; I would like to create the individual articles, depending of course on the outcome of this discussion. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Georgia">] • ]</span> 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| That said, I can see that it is useful for a certain kind of reader, and when used properly it can give a good overview of the composition. So, I'm torn. | |||
| :Yes, absolutely. Since they are different pieces, I can't imagine why they can't each have their own article, like any other notable stand-alone composition. ] ] 00:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The infobox is currently being added piecemeal to various compositions, which doesn't help to achieve cohesiveness in terms of look or application of the template. ~ ] 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. ] (]) 00:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Definitely! Happy to help with these as well. ] (]) 01:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn’t know {{tl|Infobox musical composition}} existed. It seems to have been recently developed by ] and ] apparently without notifying the project. | |||
| :The box has too many fields. ] and ] explain how infoboxes are supposed to work. Essentially they are there to summarise the main facts from the article. They should not be there to accumulate trivia. The contents of boxes should be balanced and proportionate per ], a policy that applies to boxes, and other ancillary material, as well as article text. '']]'' 14:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mentioned the infobox in the development of {{tl|infobox opera}}. It exists since 2008, well before I even started at Misplaced Pages, so I took for granted that it is known. I added only a few fields such as catalogue number which I find essential. Not all fields will be used. - The template appears in ], that article had more than 2000 views in the last 30 days, I noticed no complaints ;) --] (]) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: A cursory examination of the infoboxes history will show that it has existed since 2008. It contains no ''trivia''; and does not have "''too many fields''". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 23 January 2025
 | WikiProject Classical music was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 February 2011. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
List of classical music composers by era has been nominated for deletion
Hi all, List of classical music composers by era has been nominated for deletion. There has also been substantial discussion about the list on the talk page, so input from project members at AfD would be helpful. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Is it time for individual articles on the Brahms clarinet sonatas?
Clarinet Sonatas (Brahms) was created in 2004; as far as I know, before this post a split was never been discussed. I believe this combined article is an inferior format for the sonatas and should be split. Although their genesis overlaps, the music is different enough to justify separation. To quote Camembert in 2005, this wasn't intended as a permanent solution: "eventually we can have separate articles on the two, but the only info here applies to the both, so I thought this was best for the time being." After some research on the wealth of sourcing available, I believe a comprehensive article on each could easily run into 3000+ words; I would like to create the individual articles, depending of course on the outcome of this discussion. Thoughts? UpTheOctave! • 8? 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. Since they are different pieces, I can't imagine why they can't each have their own article, like any other notable stand-alone composition. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Opus33 (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Definitely! Happy to help with these as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)