Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:42, 16 May 2013 editSmerus (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers51,056 edits →Alkan/Hamelin: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:42, 2 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,785 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}}
	== Orchestra infobox: proposal ==
			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	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'.
			\|maxarchivesize = 75K

			\|counter = 81
	<small>See: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc.</small>
			\|minthreadsleft = 3

			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	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)
			\|algo = old(90d)
	*'''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)
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive %(counter)d
	*'''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)
	:: What's the problem with that field? I fail to understand how you improve the encyclopedia by preventing a reader or re-user from getting the information that the Vienna Philharmonic is called Wiener Philharmoniker ''in its native language''. --] (]) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::Bogus example. See the first sentence of the ] lead: ''"The Vienna Philharmonic (in German: Wiener Philharmoniker), founded . . . . "'' ''Of course'' no one is preventing the reader seeing this. That's not the point. And it's important to remember that the Vienna Philharmonic is an official name. --'']]'' 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::Kleinzach's claim that the field (singular) is for "''invented'' translated names" (my emphasis) is bogus. He offers no explanation for his removal of HTML classes unrelated to the native_name parameters. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 23:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::: Ah, I see now. But surely we don't fix the problem of folks supplying incorrect information by removing everyone's ability to supply any information at all? --] (]) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

	== Infoboxes in composition articles ==

	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).

	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.

	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.

	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 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)
	:Such metadata in the lede is not machine-readable. Once in an infobox, it is; and can thus be queried programatically. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	:The argument that the infobox duplicates info is ALWAYS invalid. In fact ideally there shouldn't be info in an infobox that ISN'T duplicated in the article. ] (]) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	::"The argument that the infobox duplicates info is ALWAYS invalid." "Citation needed", I fear. ] (]) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::MOS:INFOBOX: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	::Indeed, Melodia, I don't think that's necessarily always true. Check out song infoboxes, or, to use a totally different example, geographical infoboxes with metadata that doesn't merit repetition in the article. ~ ] 16:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	*A related discussion is taking place at ], I'm about to alert the users there to this wider discussion. ~ ] 20:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
	::Well even if they don't strive to the ideal (of only including info in the article), saying they are bad /because/ of it is contrary of the whole point of them in the first place, as Andy notes about in ]. ] (]) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

	: The norm in Misplaced Pages articles is to provide a very brief summary of key items in an infobox in the top right of an article. This provides a consistent framework element for re-users like Google to automatically extract information - see . It also marks up many items with standard classes that can be recognised by others who scan our articles to collect information in ]s. For the casual reader, an infobox has the same relationship to a well-written lead as that lead has to the rest of the article: if a lead provides a 2-minute summary of the article, then an infobox provides a 20-second overview of the lead. Redundancy is necessarily built in to an infobox, just as it is in the lead.
	: There are, of course, many reasons why either an infobox or some of its contents may not be appropriate in a particular article, but each needs to be examined on an individual basis: sometimes the précis will oversimplify and mislead; sometimes the amount of information in the infobox overwhelms a short article; but the case ''needs to be made''. The same reasons ''for'' an infobox exist in every article; while the reasons ''against'' will vary and often do not exist. It is true that the weight of argument will be against an infobox in many cases, but the onus is on the person wanting to remove an infobox to make that case.
	: Trying to generalise these issues is a laudable, but ultimately doomed endeavour. Only consensus on an article-by-article basis can replace the general guidance that infoboxes are neither required nor forbidden. --] (]) 21:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

	As regards the infobox for ], which initiated this thread, I am bound to say that it appears to be completely pointless. The reader who knows nothing about this type of music will be baffled by the contents, the reader who does will find it entirely superfluous. The lead of the article by the way is atrocious - it is quite arrogant to use terms like 'SATB soloists' here which will just mystify the uninitiated - but the infobox will hardly help here as it uses the same abbreviations. This indeedserves to underline the argument that time would be better spent on improving articles than on creating decorative upper-right hand corners. The waffle above by ] about 'Intelligence in Misplaced Pages' is of course totally irrelevant to editors - it relates to some concept of WP as a structural experiment for geeks, not to (what the general majority of editors in this project are concerned with) making available useful, evidence-based, knowledge.--] (]) 07:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
	:While I agree that the infobox isn't much of a thing for that article, you're way off base about the SATB thing. The issue isn't the use of the term -- which is Wikilinked so anyone can see what it means if they are "mystified" -- but that the instrumentation simply shouldn't be in the lead. I imagine this is a result of an older version of the article not having sections. Calling it arrogent to use a commonly accepted term though? Talk about things that drive editors away. ] (]) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
	::I entirely agree about instrumentation. But things that are 'accepted' by you and me and other cognoscenti aren't necessarily comprehensible to the uninitiated. That is what I was getting at. I am more concerned about driving readers away than driving editors away; after all we editors are of course all sane, wise and reasonable fellows :-}. --] (]) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::''aren't necessarily comprehensible to the uninitiated''...which is why wikilinks exist. If someone doesn't know what it means, they click and find out. Just because some people may not know a perfectly valid term doesn't mean should dumb things down, especially when there's really nothing better. ] (]) 19:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::The breakdown of ] is totally detracting from the actual point of my original question, but okay, I'll bite. What's wrong with having the instrumentation in the lede? The orchestration of these masses is necessarily small and doesn't justify its own section. Precedent exists in, say, ], another piece with a fairly small orchestration. It makes sense to give the orchestra its own section when it's a massive component - think ], but otherwise it's not important on its own. I could move it into the "structure" section to form a "structure and instrumentation" section but the instruments are often discussed in the background sections, so they need to be mentioned at some point beforehand. I question where either of you would put it. ~ ] 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the compliments on the lede, Smerus. As a person unaccustomed to regular article-writing, it's most encouraging to me. I suppose the irony and hypocrisy of calling something "arrogant" in the same breath as passing your judgement on it being "atrocious" is lost on you? At the very least, I now know not to bring my articles to this talk page. I realise it's far easier to snicker at something behind the relatively closed doors of this WikiProject than to click over to the article and fix a minor problem.
	:::::As to the "arrogance" of using an apparently misleading term in the lede (which, by the way, is perfectly appropriate usage in the context of what you are reading - an article about religious music) - guess what your average Misplaced Pages reader does when they are confronted with a wikilinked term they don't know? They click it. It's kind of the point of this place. Could it be that you're the one who has become unfamiliar with reader behaviour in favour of passing editorial judgement on articles? ~ ] 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	===Scoring===
	We discussed an infobox on Bach's works in great length (archived). There we arrived at a solution to list the instruments he used - highly important because he assigned special meaning to specific instruments - by abbreviations, that are at present listed in the ]. Growing to more general: is there an article on the two-letter-abbreviations used for instruments in later scoring? Can we develop something that explains that a {{abbr\|Tr\|tromba}} meant a different trumpet for Bach than for Wagner? --] (]) 11:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Link to ]? (Although, I have no idea if that's the trumpet you're talking about.) ] (]) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
	::We are talking about abbreviations in the scoring section of an infobox, no link there, just an explanation of the abbreviation, but depending on the period, it will mean a different instrument, --] (]) 13:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	Well, if there's an article for the particular kind of trumpet used in a particular piece, e.g. ], ], etc. then use that name in the {{tl\|abbr}}, template for that particular piece. e.g.

	:<nowiki>{{abbr\|Tr\|natural trumpet}}</nowiki> which produces {{abbr\|Tr\|natural trumpet}}

	If the reader is mystified, they can look it up later. Am I missing something about what you want to do in the box that you couldn't accomplish that way? I suppose you could write a whole essay about the different kinds of trumpets, e.g. {{abbr\|Tr\|Trumpet, but Bach's trumpets were different from Wagner's trumpets. Bach's trumpets were slim and compact and were sometimes used to blow crumbs off his dinner table. However, Wagner's trumpets were great big whacking things sometimes used for blowing sopranos off the stage}}. ] (]) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	:I probably have a language problem. KISS: I am looking for a list of the two-letter-abbreviations that musical publishers use. Do we have such a thing? - We have it for Bach, see above. Should we make it a separate article, because it doesn't only apply to the cantatas?
	:ps: I do/did use the fashion you describe above, but see the talk of ] and ], --] (]) 15:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	Ah, I see what you're getting at, I thiiiink. ;-) There's certainly a precedent for creating one. See ], ], ], etc. It could be a useful page to have. I notice those musical score abbreviations appear in some opera articles too. They're quite off-putting and I suspect totally mystifying to the general reader. When I have the time, I tend to go through and convert them to real words: "2 flutes". ] (]) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
	::Turns out there is already an article for scoring, ]. - ] (]) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Looks like you got it! In an article, consider "two flutes" ;) In an article, I always use the complete names of the instrument. But in an infobox (and in a list of movements) we have limited space, there (!) I think to offer the "natural trumpet" as you suggested above is a good compromise, --] (]) 16:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Something completely different - Cyrillic names in English Misplaced Pages ==

	I have tried to raise the following issue at the Village Pump ], but have met only with the obtuse comments of an apparently offended Russian editor - so I raise the issue here for comments/advice.

	In summary: there seems to have arisen a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of clarifying stress in words by placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version). In articles on e.g. English subjects (e.g. ]) or French subjects (e.g. ]) no guide on accent is provided, save where this may be indicated by IPA pronunciation. These accents do not exist in normal written or printed Russian; however, Russian WP does provide guide to stressing names in the first line of the lead: thus the Russian article on Tchaikovsky, which is titled 'Чайковский, Пётр Ильич' (i.e. without stress accents), begins ' '''Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский'''....'

	The English WP guidelines are quite clear: ] gives the example correctly, without stress accents:
	#:''Example'': ''']''' ({{lang-ru\|Пётр Ильич Чайковский}})

	However the English WP article begins:' '''Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky''' ({{IPAc-en\|icon\|ˈ\|p\|j\|ɔː\|t\|ər\|_\|ɪ\|ˈ\|l\|i\|ɪ\|tʃ\|_\|tʃ\|aɪ\|ˈ\|k\|ɒ\|f\|s\|k\|i}}; ]: Пётр Иль'''и́'''ч Чайк'''о́'''вский....' (I have added the bold face to the accented vowels). And thus with virtually all other English WP articles on Russian composers and musicians (and indeed all other Russians).

	This is highly misleading to English WP readers, not familiar with Cyrillic, who might wish for some reason to transcribe the name in Cyrillic and will be receving incorrect information from the articles, as these stress marks are not part of the spelling. (To be explicit, it is as if Russians were to give the orthography of Churchill's English name as 'Wínston Léonard Spéncer-Chúrchill').

	I suspect this situation has come about both from English editors transcribing direct from Russian WP, and from over-zealous Russian editors of English WP seeking to export Russian WP conventions.

	If we ''do'' wish to indicate where stress lies (and that seems a perfectly worthy objective if people like it), the convention should be to provide a stressed version in English (or IPA) script, and to take the stresses off the Cyrillic names. Whateverone's attitude on this question, the use of stresses on Cyrillic names in English WP is unencyclopaedic (and indeed pointless, as those who can't read Cyrllic make no sense of it, and those who do gain no information from it).

	As this seems to be a virus which has infected English WP wholesale, I am at a loss as to where I can raise it where I can get some attention, so all comments would be welcome. But can I '''propose''' anyway that we include in the WP Classical Music guidelines that such stress-marks , where they are not part of the standard orthography, should not be included where names are given in foreign scripts, and that we should adhere to ]? --] (]) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

	: A few comments, in random order.
	:* As a Russian speaker, I have often been helped by discovering the stress in a particular name is not where I always assumed it was.
	:* Russian WP uses them extensively (but like English WP, only to show how a name is pronounced, not all the way through the text)
	:* I have seen little to no evidence that anyone believes the stress marks are part of the standard spelling, apart from the umlaut in ё.
	:* Stress marks are widely used throughout WP's articles on Russians, and we should not have a different policy for classical musicians than applies generally. This discussion should really be taking place at ]. -- ] </sup></font>]] 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

	:: Thanks. I have nothing against stress marks - but surely in English WP they should come on English text, rather than on Cyrillic text which most English users will not be able to comprehend? I will move this discussion as you suggest to ]. --] (]) 04:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	::Ihave moved it - but am not greatly hopeful of any response, since the last posting there was October 2011 - and, as I have pointed out above, the guideline standard is already without stress accents - still, let's see............--] (]) 04:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	===Proposal===
	Can I anyway '''propose''' that this project should adopt as a guideline something as follows, which would obviate the need for a stressed version of Cyrillic (or any other language):

	''Where the stress in a foreign name is not obvious, this should be indicated in the lead section by a stressed version of the name in English.''

	Thus the first line of ] might then read:

	'''Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky''' (stressed Pyótr Ilyích Tchaikóvsky, {{IPAc-en\|icon\|ˈ\|p\|j\|ɔː\|t\|ər\|_\|ɪ\|ˈ\|l\|i\|ɪ\|tʃ\|_\|tʃ\|aɪ\|ˈ\|k\|ɒ\|f\|s\|k\|i}}; ]: Пётр Ильич Чайковский;)....

	--] (]) 05:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

	: Somehow I'm not wedded to that idea. It's one thing to indicate how the Russian is stressed, but there's a lot more to the pronunciation than just the stress. I mean, how many English speakers say the -ch- correctly in Rachmaninoff; or Bach, for that matter? We don't get into telling them that it's not supposed to be like a hard -k-, which is how most say it. And then there's Chopin (not show-pan), Saint-Saëns (not sant-song), Strauss (not strows) and so on forever. I like the sentiment behind your idea, but I don't think it will float. -- ] </sup></font>]] 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

	::The (mousable) phonetic transcription already contains the stress marks for the Russian-language pronunciation which, as Jack points out, generally differs from the commonly used English-language pronunciation/s. ] (]) 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Title? ==

	], really? I was told that it is masses, not Masses. Then it should be suites, not Suites, like ], --] (]) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Agreed. -- ] (]) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

	:Indeed, as the word 'suites' is generic, lowercase is the way to go. ] (]) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

	::First link is to the move request, sort of, --] (]) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::Is there possibly some confusion here? Generic titles (according to ]) are not to be italicized, but nevertheless are capitalized, like any other title. Do I understand correctly that all generic titles should be lowercased? In that case, should it be Beethoven's ], or Brahms's ]? I would find this very strange indeed. As to the Brandenburg concertos, doesn't that qualify as a true title or, at least, the "Brandenburg" part (as in Ives's ''Concord Sonata''—whoops, I mean ''sonata'')?—] (]) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::"Orchestral suites" is not the title of any piece by Bach. Is that the source of confusion? ] (]) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::So if there were four separate articles, they'd be capitalized as they are at IMSLP? . And what about these? ]? What problem are we trying to solve here?] (]) 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::"Orchestral Suite No. 1" is a piece, "orchestral suites" is not. See for example . ] (]) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::OK. Thanks. So we have articles for ] and ]. Makes sense.] (]) 19:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::In this context, I can see the logic. MelodiaChaconne's explanation that "the word 'suites' is generic" is simply confusing (in my mind) the concept of "generic title" with something less specific. I still wonder about "Brandenburg concertos", though. Is this also "generic" in the sense that "suites" are? Are there many Brandenburg concertos written by various composers, or just the set of six composed by Bach? If this is generic, then what of sets by other composers, such as the ] or the ] by Peter Maxwell Davies?—] (]) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::I don't know. There's one ], playing with the Brandenburg, --] (]) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::: The "concerto" part of the title is generic, or would be if it were appropriate to divide it up and analyse each word individually. But we don't do that. "Brandenburg" is not a descriptor such as appears in "Paris symphonies" or "the London Bach". "Brandenburg" doesn't refer to a place at all, but to a person. It may not be the title Bach gave them, but we should no more be talking of the "Brandenburg concertos" than we would talk of the "Warsaw concerto". "Warsaw Concerto" is a true title and every word is capitalised. Same is true for "Brandenburg Concerto No. 2", and same is true for "Brandenburg Concertos". But to return to the topic, it should be "Orchestral suites". -- ] </sup></font>]] 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::It is now, --] (]) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Is Glass ''primarily'' a composer, or should he be described as a “composer and performer of contemporary classical music”. Please see the discussion on the talk page ''']'''. --'']]'' 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Do we have to say "primarily"? Bach was a composer, but also a performer, conductor, educator, organ expert ... - why limit? --] (]) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Does this project have a policy on article creation? ==

	I was at my local ] this weekend where I got into a discussion with a WP administrator. In short, I espoused the opinion that creation of an article should have at least a paragraph's worth of information in addition to sources. This administrator, as one of those who is responsible for deleting AfDs, felt that (assuming notability) all an article needs is a sentence and source to justify creation. I'm wondering how this project feels about the issue. -- ] (]) 17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	:Hello Kosboot. There seems to be a long-standing (perhaps sentimental?) idea at WP that an article that starts out extremely modestly can, with tender loving care, eventually blossom into something worthwhile. I think your approach is actually more sensible, and would fit in well with ongoing efforts by our project to emphasize scholarly quality. However, I worry that a project-specific policy is likely to create conflict, especially with non-project members. A ban on very short articles might end up being more trouble than it's worth. ] (]) 19:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	::I think many of the stubs we'd be worried about creating already exist. There is certainly no shortage of classical music stubs. See ]. Kosboot, did you have particular articles in mind or was it more of a hypothetical question?] (]) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::It was more hypothetical. If I let myself create 1-sentence stubs, I could create dozens of articles in a single day. But ever since childhood, I've been haunted by the aphorism: "''If we learn a little about a lot, we will soon know nothing about everything''." So I'm the type that would rather do more to one article than create little stubs (although at times, having a even just stub would be helpful). -- ] (]) 19:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::For an actual example of such a stub article ] was created in February of 2009 as a stub article and has not been seriously updated since then, compare that with the equivalent article for ] or even the article for ].] (]) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	::::A very short stub can be of value if it links to something substantial in a different language, --] (]) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::No it can't, Gerda. This is English Misplaced Pages. We should assume that it is for readers of English who may not be able to deal with other languages. Such stubs might have value for you (or even me) but that doesn't in itself justify them.--] (]) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Settings of poems by author ==

	Is it worth creating a category or categories for "Settings of works by author"? What brought this to mind was my trying to find song and choral settings of Whitman poems. –] (] ⋅ ]) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	:Seems like a good idea. I'm intrigued when I encounter different settings of the same poem by different composers. ] (]) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	::I've made ] and started work on the Whitman category. Immediately of course I had a dilemma over what to do about Shakespeare... some musical settings aren't of "poems" (eg. ]), and oh my god operas, most Shakespeare operas just adapt his story and don't set his text but... –] (] ⋅ ]) 23:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::I've started a cat for Heinrich Heine.] (]) 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

	::::Following up - what do you think of settings where the original text is translated, some times more loosely than others? I'm thinking of "None but the lonely heart" (Goethe, but in Russian) or "The Bells" (Poe, Russian). –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{tl\|Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at ] and ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Implement a class scale? ==

	I'm thinking if we should implement a Class scale for classical music related articles since this particular project doesn't have any yet. Thoughts? ] (] - ]) 04:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
	:This question comes up every year or two. Its a lot of work to rate all the articles and maintain the ratings over time. The editors here haven't had the time for that in the past, but its been a while since this was last asked.] (]) 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't think things have changed much -- it seems a lot of work for not much benefit. ] (]) 15:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::If the project had lots of people sharing the responsibility of ratings, it might be a good idea. But since we don't have that mass, any rating would be a reflection of just a few people - which I don't believe is a good idea. I'd much rather create/edit articles than rate them. -- ] (]) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::Do we mean assessments? We have a page about this ''']'''. The total number of articles under this project is 16,523 according to ]. The ], which is a 'daughter project' of this one does do assessments, see ''']''', though after the disruption of the project by the infobox wars, I don't think anybody has been working on assessments recently. --'']]'' 11:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Year of Czech Music 2014 ==

	The Czech Republic has nominated 2014 as Year of Czech Music (artistic patrons, Magdalena Kožená and Simon Rattle) . Currently , ] redirects to ], which begins, ''By the article '''Music of the Czech Republic''' must be taken to mean the music, that has been created in the Czech Republic since January 1, 1993.''

	This is as an issue I couldn't begin to fix myself (beyond copyediting that sentence), but I thought it might perhaps be of some topical interest to this project. ] (]) 09:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

	*Hello, the redirect for ] is surely wrong - any suggestions on how to fix that at least? ] (]) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

	** And the article ] to which it redirects is a complete disgrace - no references or citations, entirely about music before the Republic, except for a set of links to WP articles about Czech pop music/musicians. There is clearly a need for a drastic edit (or deletion) of this shameful article and for the creation of articles e.g. ], ], ], ( or maybe better ]) - compare existing ], which, if of only mediocre quality, at least addresses its topic. For want of any better alternative, I have changes the redirect under ] to ] which at least lists relevant articles.--] (]) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

	::::Thank you, Smerus - a good move, imo. The broader issue obviously remains; as you note, it's by no means a clear-cut one (cf ], ], ], and ], ], ] etc). ] (]) 06:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::::I have now made a start in sorting these out, on the principle of ], but I will not myself be able to do much work on the contents of the articles.--] (]) 12:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

	::::::Yes, it's a significant undertaking, but one I thought it was worth raising here. Regards, ] (]) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Abbreviations in infoboxes ==

	Should abbreviations be used in infoboxes?
	For example this comes from '']'':

	*Solo voices S T B
	*Choir SATB
	*Instruments Tr Fp 2Oa 2Vl Va Bc

	Any opinions? --'']]'' 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:It has been ]. Each abbreviation comes with a link to what it abbreviates, and "scoring" comes with a link to the list of voices and instruments Bach used:
	:* ]
	:* solo voices = {{abbr\|S\|soprano}} {{abbr\|T\|tenor}} {{abbr\|B\|bass}}
	:* choir = ]
	:* instruments = {{abbr\|Tr\|tromba}} {{abbr\|Fp\|flauto piccolo}} 2{{abbr\|Oa\|oboe d'amore}} 2{{abbr\|Vl\|violino}} {{abbr\|Va\|viola}} {{abbr\|Bc\|basso continuo}}
	:--] (]) 13:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:ps: you may also want to compare a similar discussion on several composition talk pages, for example ] --] (]) 14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:: I know it has been discussed here beofre, but I repeat my earlier comments: ''we'' all know what these things mean, but less informed WP users don't necessarily know. And the fact that individual letters may be linked to articles doesn't prevent these abbreviations looking confusing to non-experts. In my opinion to use these abbreviations is an arrogance. If infoboxes are there to help people, as we are repeatedly assured, they and their contents should be 100% user friendly.--] (]) 15:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::''Actually I don't know what '20a', for example, means!'' IMO this goes against one of the most basic rules of publishing — that you should define abbreviations ''first'' before using them. '']]'' 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Should we say "Scoring (abbreviations explained)" or something like this? "Scoring" - including the explanation - comes before they are used, --] (]) 16:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::If you hover over Oa it tells you that it stands for Oboe d'amore, if you click on scoring, you get links to the instruments. - If you have problems, we can hide the section with a label: "caution, abbreviations". The articles have all instruments in full, but that would blow up the infobox, imo, --] (]) 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::ps: ] recently passed as GA with an infobox like that, --] (]) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Why would making it ''more'' intimidating be the solution? Better to ] in the infobox and omit these abbreviations. We can explain the instrumentation in the article where we have more room to work. ] (]) 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::I don't know what you mean by "more intimidating"? - I see the abbreviations as an offer to those people who are able to see at a glance who's playing, like in orchestral publications. I didn't "invent" them, I found them on the German Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 16:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: But Gerda, taking ideas which may (or may not as far as I know) be consensus on other WPs and blandly introducing them into English WP is exactly "inventing" custom on English WP. These abbreviations seems to me to be baffling and annoying to to novices, and as such they are off-putting - when we are supposed to be finding means of making information attractive. If there is no agreed protocol for using them, you should put the topic to the test and debate it as a WP ClassicalMusic guideline. Otherwise you are just carrying out intellectual spamming. For what it is worth, I would, and will, (as is obvious) oppose any such proposal in a discussion.] (]) 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::May I politely say that I did not introduce them without a long discussion, linked above? What other "protocol" do you think we need? --] (]) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::If you're referring to ], Gerda, I would point out that there are only two mentions of these abbreviations: yourself, and someone saying "I don't think using abbreviations is very helpful in infoboxes". It would seem that consensus here is against their use. ] (]) 12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::I would like to point out that I linked to the examples, rather than copying them to here, and "my" articles had these abbreviations - to which I was used from the German Misplaced Pages - from the beginning, , - the example above is taken from ]--] (]) 10:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}"SATB" is a very common abbreviation known to anyone with a smattering of musical training, the instrumentation ones a bet less well-known, but also widespread. Infoboxes need to use common abbreviations, and ] is often unavoidable. Really, should all the music articles also have to add "soprano" (the section with the highest notes) upon every first use of that word as well? I'm exaggerating a bit, but how is SATB truly any different from abbreviations like MPG or MPH (for "miles per gallon"/ "hour") which may be an abbreviation unfamiliar to people who use the metric system? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Our readers, by and large, do ''not'' have a "smattering of musical training". IMO MPG/MPH is widely, if not universally, understood in countries that still use traditional measurements, whereas SATB ("what does the 'A' stand for?") is only understood by a minority of people who have some kind of choral music performance experience. --'']]'' 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

	===Bach composition infoboxes===
	Gerda: Do these abbreviations only appear in boxes that use your ], or are they used on other templates? '']]'' 16:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	:They appear at present only in works by Bach that have many instruments, - typically right next to the section "Scoring" which has them in full. --] (]) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:ps: They appear in the ], of course, where they are explained, and where they come from for the single work, --] (]) 09:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

	*My two cents. The ] abbreviation can be linked and its a common description for a chorus so I don't have a problem with that. The instrument abbreviations are far too cryptic and I'd prefer they weren't used. If this section of the box was made collapsible, then the instruments could be spelled out.] (]) 17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::The SATB abbreviation IS linked, see my example above, --] (]) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

	*I'm also wondering why the instruments and voice types (apart from a linked SATB chorus) cannot simply be written in full. The extra space used would be very minimal, and it would be ''much'' clearer to our readers. The current version is not user-friendly at all despite the "hovering text". This is leaving aside the issue of whether the scoring belongs in the box in the first place. ] (]) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::Define "belongs". I see it as an offer for those who know, at the bottom of the box. It was discussed. Abbreviations are only used where a full list would be (too?) long. It is important that Bach used 2 violas in Weimar, but only one in Weimar, - much easier to see if abbreviated, if you ask me. Every single instrument had a meaning for Bach, therefore I would prefer not to simply say "strings", for example, --] (]) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::]: Surely this kind of thing is too technical to have a place in an infobox which should be summarising the article, not going into ]? '']]'' 11:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::Sorry, I disagree, the sound of a cantata is captured there, which is to my understanding about the most valuable information we can supply. Whether a piece is scored modestly for a lone oboe, two violins, viola and continuo (]), or festively for trumpet, oboes, oboe d'amore, two violins, viola, viola da gamba and continuo (]), makes such a difference to me, --] (]) 11:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Gerda, if the information is so crucial and belongs in the infobox, then it should be transparent to all readers, of every level of expertise, both in terms of the music itself, and in terms of their expertise with computers and their ability to manipulate and access what's on the screen. The instruments should be spelled out and linked. They should not given in cryptic abbreviations which require hovering the cursor over them, which even then fails to provide any explanation as to the meaning of the term, e.g. '''2{{abbr\|Co\|corno}}'''. Even if the hapless non-expert reader figured out the hovering mechanism and could cope with it, they will be mystified by "corno". I don't know why you keep saying this has been discussed as if it were settled. The few times you've mentioned it, the responses have been that the abbreviations were not the optimal way to present this information. You have consistently argued for infoboxes on the basis that they help people who cannot read English, who are dyslexic, or have other disabilities (e.g. mobility or vision problems). If you truly want to help them, as well as people who can read OK but are not music experts, then don't use these kinds of abbreviations. I don't understand why you have such a resistance to simply spelling them out. ] (]) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I also note ''']''': ''"Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Misplaced Pages does not have the same space constraints as paper."'' --'']]'' 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
	One editor here is taking a lone stand on a topic which I think every other editor takes an opposing view. The conclusion is therefore obvious and this should be the end of the discussion. See ].--] (]) 19:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:WIkipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it "one editor." I see a ] discussion here ]<sup>]</sup> 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

	::::::There is a difference between an article and an infobox. See below ]<sup>]</sup> 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

	===Revision of ]===
	Based on the discussion above, I have revised the ] . I hope that's satisfactory to everybody. (N.B. I'd personally prefer to see SATB spelt out, but I've left that abbreviation in the documentation.) This change doesn't affect the articles directly, where the abbreviations will need to be removed by hand. '']]'' 08:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
	:Discussion is open ], because we need to discuss what to do instead. Simple "removing" is no improvement of the articles, the information needs to be replaced, but how? --] (]) 13:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

	::There is no universal consensus against ] in infoboxes. Wikilinks are a beautiful thing, allowNote ] where there are some things spelled out, but also a LOT of highly technical abbreviations I don't understand. Learning about those things is part of what makes an encyclopedia educational. Dumbing down things is of no help, and I see that being advocated here. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::See ''']''' quoted above. Abbreviations used sensibly are useful. Used unnecessarily, and potentially even misleadingly, they are a bad thing. If each of us, working in our own individual (music) fields, started devising our own sets of abbreviations (e.g. for Monteverdi or Vivaldi works, 19th century French opera genres, early 20th century French piano music, 2nd Vienna School or whatever) the articles would soon end up being unintelligible. --'']]'' 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

	::::I agree with that, but here I see two debates; one over the "look" of the infobox and the need to keep things concise (favors abbreviations) versus the need for accuracy, which favors inclusion of instruments by name without abbreviations, or at least relatively standard abreviations with wikilinks for the uninitiated, and that the historical changes in instrumentation complicate matters (whereas voices have been pretty much standardized with SATB, etc...) . Does that sum up the situation? ]<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::::No, not really. The point that I and others have been making about abbreviations is a general editorial one per ]. '']]'' 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	::::::I don't have the slightest problem with spelling full names of instruments (for example), as long as they are not treated as "(too) long lists". They should show, uncollapsed. I used the abbreviations for two reasons: brevity and similarity to other Wikipedias (compare ] and ]). If that is not wanted, fine with me (although I don't understand why it would not be wanted). --] (]) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	:::::::::It seems there is a ] here, use no abbrvs and people complain that the infobox is too big, use abbrevs and then we have whines about WP:ABBR. Feels like Cinderella's stepsisters are at work here, trying to be sure that any progress and hard work will simply not be tolerated? Clearly, where there ARE standard abbrevs (SATB for example), they really should be used in an Infobox. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::SATB is fine as an abbrev, I think, it's fairly broadly recognized and is even the title of an article. Other abbreviations are much less standardized and recognized. ] (]) 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Cool, something is agreed upon! It's a start. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Music notation renderer ==

	Copying from ]:
	{{Quotation\|
	{{tracked\|189}}
	After many years, one of the most voted and oldest feature requests has been solved. , Misplaced Pages finally has a renderer for music notation. See ] for an example. Congrats to the original filer xmlizer ! And a thank you to all who helped write the various generations of the extension and those that reviewed the code. —] (] • ]) 08:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:More at ]. --] (]) 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	}}
	-- ] (]) 17:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
	:That is indeed quite a step forward; notation examples can now be generated much easier (not necessarily simpler). Howver, there's also a downside: anyone care to proofread {{Querylink\|Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach)\|qs=&diff=551853562&oldid=550660006\|these three edits}}? Are we going to see {{Tl\|Citation needed}} templates for score examples? -- ] (]) 06:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::We shouldn't need to cite music examples any more than a movie plot needs to be cited. And if someone finds something wrong it's SO much easier to change it. ] (]) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

	== Manuscript images ==

	]'', Act 1 Scene 1.]]
	I've just set an upload running on Commons - ] - for a collection of ~400 musical manuscripts (all pre-1850, I think) sourced from the British Library. The collection is fairly patchy - it's mostly two or three pages per named composer or known copyist, as it was originally intended to be a sampler so that people could compare handwriting. (I've had this collection sitting around for months, but I was having real trouble getting the metadata together)

	Hope they're of interest! They may be quite useful when writing about the pieces, or about the composers; I uploaded a few examples some months back to help illustrate certain composers when we didn't have images of them (eg ]). ] (]) 15:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

	:This is great Andrew, thanks! Any chance of putting up the string quartet fragment of ] which is hanging around the BL somewhere? - - as it's his bicentenary year and I'm trying to get the WP article up to scratch.--] (]) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

	::Bravo, Andrew! -- ] (]) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

	:::I'll give Alkan a shot tomorrow (but can't promise anything - I got these because we'd digitised them already for a separate cataloguing project). And thanks both! ] (]) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::: :-} ] (]) 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::I haven't found out about a digital copy yet, but at least I've identified it - Hirsch IV.1455. f. 10v; "Charles-Valentin Alkan, composer: Opening of string quartet in F minor by Charles-Valentin Alkan: 1846: Signed: Autogr.". It's an interesting-looking volume - all these fragments signed and dedicated to the former owner of the book. A musical ]? ] (]) 08:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::: The BL has a few of these sorts of albums knocking around, and I think none of them properly researched. Take a look for example at the autograph albums of the ] family, which have musical extracts (some of them very extensive) in the hands of Liszt, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, and numerous other big names. (Including Meyerbeer's only 'string quartet' - a joke arrangment of 'God Save the Queen'). You could do huge projects based on any of these..........--] (]) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::: Sadly, I've heard back and they're not digitised! ] (]) 13:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::: Curses!! What does one do to persuade powers-that-be to undertake digitisation?--] (]) 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::: (sorry, missed the reply). I fear the answer is "pay for it"... ] (]) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Adios/Lord Sjones23 ==

	Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles. Till then, adios. ] (] - ]) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

	== New article ==

	I'm not sure how relevant to this project it is, but a few hours ago I came across the new article ]. It is a bit of a disaster, so any efforts to improve it are welcome. Thanks, ] (]) 09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
	: article by the same editor who prepared the equally disastrous article on the piece's composer....looks like some commercial promotion is being attempted here.....--] (]) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

	::Toccata quarta and I have pretty much whacked it into shape. It was loaded with copyvio, amongst other issues. It appears to have already been deleted once at Articles for Creation but promptly re-created directly to article space. I also moved it to ] and left a warning on the talk page. Smerus is right, the composer's article, ], is a nightmare, but they may be the products of a friend or or hyper-active fan, not necessarily the composer himself. ] (]) 13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Berlin Philharmonic, Vienna Philharmonic move requests ==

	See ''']''' and ''']'''. --'']]'' 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	:The discussion at ''']''' has been deleted (twice) and the user involved has insisted that the discussion, ''for both orchestras'', takes place at ''']'''.

	:This discussion could have wide repercussions. Should we use proper names (for article titles) taken from 'reliable sources' (i.e. books and newspapers), or use official names (as used on institution publications)? Should we use English or native language? --'']]'' 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	::Also see the related ''']''' discussion. --'']]'' 01:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Article expansion. ==

	Just to let everyone know, I'm planning to expand the ] article based on the new material I've found and added to the external links section to try and bring it in line with the other articles, similar to my expansion of the Quartettsatz article last year.

	I'd also like to invite others to have a look at the notes I left on the talk pages of ] and ] as these contain details of items I was not able to research myself.] (]) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

	== Guideline for titles of institutions and organizations ==

	Article titles for (non-English) orchestras, companies etc. have not been a particular problem in the past, but our usual approach (of using an English name if it already exists, otherwise the original language version) has recently been challenged, first in connection with the ] , and now explicitly by the move requests for the ] and ] (see above).

	There is no guideline for the proper names of institutions and organizations connected to music. We don't have one here, nor is there one at ]. ] is largely concerned with geographical/place names and personal names, so that is not directly helpful either, although the principle explained there (‘’”This is an English-language encyclopedia, so established English names are preferred if they exist . . . .”’‘) should be generally applicable. ('Established - in terms of our articles — can be regarded as meaning the same thing as 'official'.)

			== "Notable" recordings ==
	So should we draft a guideline (for eventual upward migration) to obviate future problems? It could be quite short. --'']]'' 06:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I'd like to second this proposal as clarity is needed in this area.] (]) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (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)
	===Draft===
			: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.
	Here is my draft:
			: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 ==
	{{Quotation\|Titles of organisations and institutions (e.g. orchestras, musical ensembles and groups, concert halls, festivals, schools etc.) should follow official usage (i.e. the spelling, punctuation etc. used by the organisation’s own publications). In the case of non-English names, we use official English versions if established by the organisation itself. If not, we use the native name. Original English names, translated from other languages, should not be created.}}

	~~Please~~ ~~suggest~~ ~~improvements.~~ '']]'' 10:47, 5 ~~May~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Project members may want to participate in this discussion: ] – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
	:I like it. Would you want to suggest that editors consult other sources for verification, especially the Library of Congress's (which is also used by the British Library), or in the case of foreign names, ? -- ] (]) 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

			== Chamber Music Northwest ==
	::This gets my vote in principle. Kosboot's proposal is a good one, to forestall fruitless debate.--] (]) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

			] has been nominated for deletion, if any project members are interested in discussing or improving the article:
	:::Thanks. I've been looking at the Congress and VIAF sites and wondering about integrating them in the guideline, but I do find them a bit complicated to use. Say we use them to check ], how do you interpret the results? Isn't it easier to simply use the official website? Or am I missing something? --'']]'' 12:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::I dunno - I get this: . Took me longer to figure out how to do short footnotes than to figure out this database. ;) -- ] (]) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::OK. I guess we should call the orchestra the ] . . . but would you then like to draft a guideline about using Congress/VIAF? This looks sufficiently important to have its own text.
	::::::Sure - I'll adapt it from the arguments used to pass the VIAFbot - tho I'm kinda busy today - may not get to it until this afternoon. -- ] (]) 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::How about this (I find it a bit wordy) -- or maybe just from the words "When choosing":
	{{quotation\|
	Authority control is a system primarily used in libraries and other metadata services where a single entity is given a canonical unique identifier. This allows clear disambiguation between different entities with similar names, while also allowing the use of a single identifier for those with multiple variant names. When choosing a name for an article, it is highly recommended that users consult the to see if such a name has already been established. For names not in the Library of Congress file (primarily foreign), users should consult , which contains the authority files for numerous countries.}} -- ] (]) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

			* ]
	:How about this as a shortened version? Is it still clear and accurate?
	{{Quotation\|Naming using an authority control system
	<br><br>
	When choosing a name for an article, the should be consulted to see if there is an established name. For names not listed there (primarily foreign), users should go to , which contains international authority files. (These systems allocate canonical unique identifiers to single entities, allowing clear disambiguation between different entities with similar names, while allocating single identifiers for multiple variant names.)}} '']]'' 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	Yes, in your eloquent phrasing. :) -- ] (]) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

			---] <sub>(])</sub> 19:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	:This sounds like a great idea. Going with the pros is (almost) always the best policy. ] (]) 23:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

			== Künstlerleben ==
	::LC originally did extensive research in establishing names; for at least the last 30 years, it has simply taken the names as they appear on the first work they catalog. The work they use for it is normally shown in the file itself. It is a standard identifier, but it is not intellectually authoritative. It should certainly not be used for non-US authors for whom there is a different name in their own national bibliographies. The virtue of VIAF is that it gives them also. ''']''' (]) 20:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

			Hi all,
	:::I wasn't aware of this. It's important information. Should we change the wording of the guideline? Any other opinions on this? --'']]'' 12:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::With all due respect to DGG, this might have been true a number of years ago, but I don't believe it's true today. It certainly has not been true at all for names or corporations related to the world of music - the people who do this kind of work are quite conscientious and really try to identify alternative forms of name and then try to determine which is the best (confession: I'm one of them). For people or organizations where there's a doubt as to what the correct name is, the entries list the possibilities found, the rule being that the preponderance of the name generally wins. People should look at a couple of entries and see for themselves. -- ] (]) 06:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

			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).
	===Finished===
	Thanks. I've added both texts to ]. I'll propose them for ] later. '']]'' 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
	:The 'organisations and institutions' text is now in the MOS and it has a shortcut ''']'''. Thanks. '']]'' 05:39, 9 May 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)
	== New Article in Planning - The Oboe Concerto attributed to Haydn ==
			: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 ==
	In addition to two other classical music articles I am working on I'm planning to do a stub article on the Oboe Concerto in C-Major attributed to Joseph Haydn, Ignaz Malzat, J A Kozeluh and even Ludwig Van Beethoven. Online material seems thin on the ground a search so far has only bought up one program note that focusses more on the speculation surrounding who wrote it rather than the work itself and many youtube videos such as the one below.

			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 ], ], ], ], ]...
	If anyone can point me to information on this work either offline or online I would be very greatful.

			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 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)
			: ps: the same IP tried similar things for Schumann's ]. Please watch that also for returning attempts. --] (]) 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? ==
	] (]) 15:31, 4 May 2013 (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)
	:I don't know if this is a help or a confusion, but there ''is''/was a Beethoven Oboe Concerto, written about 1793 or earlier. See Forbes's edition of ''Thayer's Life of Beethoven'', 126-7 and 144-5. Fragments exist and it was also mentioned in a letter by Haydn to the Elector in Bonn.--] (]) 15:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
	::Beethoven's known mostly lost oboe concerto (that he wrote under Haydn's tutelage) has nothing to do with the piece commonly known as Haydn's oboe concerto. I'm honestly surprised there's no article about it already, as it's a pretty popular piece. ] (]) 16:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::I've found at least one forum thread from 2009 that . I'd class that as unuseable. My 'minimum article' would have to include, where (& when) the score/parts were found and the year of publication (IMSLP is confusing, printing a score dated to 1926, but later giving first publication as 1954). Reviews of CDs featuring the piece seem to be all over the map as to what the reviewer thinks of the work.] (])

			: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)
	A review in ] (vol 45 no. 4, 1964) of a piano and oboe arrangement of the concerto edited by ], published by ] (as "Haydn (?) Concerto in C major") in 1964, makes it clear that the Haydn authority ] expressly rejects that the piece is by Haydn. The reviewer says that 'there can be little doubt on musical evidence alone that this concerto is not by Haydn... it is much too Italianate to be an early work, and no one could claim it for his maturity' , although he concedes that 'it does, nevertheless have considerable charm.' I think that in any article it should be made clear that there are absolutely no documentary or stylistic grounds for attributing it to Haydn.--] (]) 16:03, 5 May 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)
			:::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)

			== Proper movement titles of Tartini's ']' ==
	Hello Graham, a bit more from my bookshelf. (1) ''Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn'' (which is very thorough) omits discussion of the concerto entirely; the only hint of its existence is a notation on their list of concertos, saying they're not bothering with the spurious ones. (2) Webster and Feder's ''New Grove Haydn'' (a spinoff from the encyclopedia) has a list of "doubtful and spurious s"; the entry there says: Hoboken number VIIg:C1, Oboe concerto; C; instrumentation 2 ob, 2 hn, 2 tpt, timp, str; date "?1800", "orig. attrib. 'H...r'; Haydn's name added later". (3) Karl Geiringer (1989 ''Haydn: A creative life in music'') flat-out calls the work "spurious". In sum, three firm negatives on Haydn authorship (and nothing about the work itself). ] (]) 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
	:If you don't get to Hoboken by today I'll check it tomorrow morning. Remember that publishers and recording companies, in seeking to maximize profits, often market works under composers' names even after musicologists express strong doubt. -- ] (]) 17:35, 5 May 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.
	Just out of interest - what title would one give to this article? To call it even (e.g.) 'Oboe Concerto attributed to Haydn' would be very wrong, since no scholarly source attributes it as such. 'Oboe Concerto in C (Anon.)'? .--] (]) 19:32, 5 May 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.
	:(Anon.) always feels a bit strange in titles to me, though it might be the only suitable option here. Perhaps adopt the approach we use for manuscripts, and use a reference number - ]? ] (]) 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
	::The Library of Congress has it under Haydn, although I bet that's to colocate the concertos based on medium and Hoboken number: -- ] (]) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

			lists the 4 movements (without citing a source) as:
	:Can't say that I like (Anon.); it has no power to differentiate from other oboe concerti whose authorship is doubtful, whereas this one has a pedigree of sorts, dubious though it may be--in other words, at least some listeners out there know this specific work and think of it as "attributed to," or even "by," Haydn, and the title should in some way reflect that. Of course, saying "nay" is always easier than coming up with a positive suggestion, but I'd float something along these lines (not necessarily exactly this wording): Oboe Concerto in C ("Haydn"—spurious). Then the opening line of the text could make clear that the work's popular association with Haydn, despite the assignment of a Hoboken no., is almost certainly incorrect and that other claimants advanced for authorship, dubiously or not, include the worthies listed at the beginning of this discussion. We'd also want a redirect from Oboe Concerto in C (Haydn). ] (]) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
			I. Larghetto ma non troppo
	::I'm not comfortable with that title of "Haydn"-spurious, or other similar suggestions. "Attib. Haydn" I could get behind, as it's still commonly said to be by him Some examples are the Chwialkowski multi-composer catalog from 1996 which always gives even "possibly spurious" if he had a question (though granted there's lots of errors in the book), the recording I have -- and most others based on the covers I've looked at, and student performances, etc -- despite scholarship. The only other clear name is Ignaz Malzat (see in a book from 1999, as well as ]), but there's not enough of a widespread belief to let it be attributed to him in the title (certainly in the article itself, however!). Which is why I think "Attrib. Haydn" for this moment in time is the way to go. ] (]) 02:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
			II. Allegro moderato
	:::For a name, I like Andrew's suggestion: '''Oboe Concerto in C (Hoboken VIIg:C1)'''. The sparse entry in Hoboken gives the scoring (2 violin , violas, bass, 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 trumpets and timpani), and describes the copy as having the name "Haydn" added in a later hand over earlier faded writing. (Grove says "H...r"). In the notes, van Hoboken says: that Pohl believed the work was inauthentic. (Van Hoboken, Anthony, ''Joseph Haydn Thematisch-bibliographisches Werverzeichnis'' (Mainz: B. Schott's Söhne, 1957), vol. 1, p. 538). In the introduction to the concerto section (p. 524), Van Hoboken adds that the work's non-inclusion in previous complete or comprehensive editions is an indication that those editors also believed it was inauthentic. I also checked Robbins-Landon's 5-volume biography and he doesn't mention it. It was first published in 1926 by Breitkopf & Härtel, edited by Alexander Wunderer .-- ] (]) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
			III. Andante
	IMSLP had a scan of the manuscript, which proved useful. Noted that the 1926 publication changes the tempo of the second movement from ''Romance poco Adagio'' to ''Andante''. I like the idea of using the name '''Oboe Concerto in C (Hoboken VIIg:C1)'''. I've found a letter on the International Double Reed Society website (]) which claims that Robbins-Landon made the suggestion that Beethoven wrote the work in Bonn, presumably before he took up his studies with Hayden, the writer of the letter rejects this on stylistic grounds, but gives no clue as to where/when Robbins-Landon made the claim.] (]) 00:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
			IV. Allegro assai — Andante — Allegro assai
	: I'm for the 'Hoboken' version of the title as well, seems to be the least controversial option. But as DrHoehl has commented, it would be appropriate to do a redirect from 'Oboe Concerto (Haydn)'.--] (]) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
			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?
	== Free access during May to International Index to Performing Arts ==

			Any help with this is greatly appreciated.
	ProQuest is offering free access to International Index to Performing Arts Full Text from now until the end of May, according to their blog . Access to the archives of 310 journals . All you need to do is sign up with an email address and password. (although I think you can get in with ). Please pass on to other performing arts projects. -- ] (]) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

			Thanks. ] (]) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	== Structure of ] ==

			== The Decca ''Ring'' ==
	I think the structure presented here is overly detailed. In my opinion, the waltz is no more than a rather compact sonata-rondo with an introduction (I-A-B-A-C-A-B-A), and separating the introduction like that is needlessly confusing. One problem is that both my assertion and what's in this article is original research; I can't find reliable sources on this topic.--] ] 03:56, 8 May 2013 (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)
	The articles on the Chopin waltzes are all very feeble, seriously content-lite: do they deserve separate articles ? (except maybe the 'Minute Waltz'.....?)--] (]) 09:07, 12 May 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)
	== ] ==
			::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 ==
	Does anyone have good reference materials for Schubert? If so the (fragmentary) ''']''' might be worth looking at. It's been extensively referenced recently. --'']]'' 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

	:~~Wow.~~ ~~Reviews~~ by ~~Amazon~~.~~com~~ ~~users~~ ~~are~~ ~~not~~ ~~adequate~~ sources ~~here,~~ and ~~neither~~ ~~are~~ ~~YouTube~~ ~~videos~~. ] (]) 04:26, 9 ~~May~~ ~~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)

	:: ~~could~~ ~~also~~ be ~~interesting~~ to ~~have~~ an ~~article~~ on ~~the~~ ] ~~btw~~.--] (]) 09:05, 12 ~~May~~ ~~2013~~ (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)

			== Proposed split on Clavier Ubung III ==
	== Dates of composition and premiere ==

			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)
	Comments are welcome at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

			== Good article reassessment for ] ==
	== Orchestra discographies ==
			] 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? ==
	Is anyone interested in working on orchestra discographies? Up to now we've only had three of these: ] (a featured list), ] (also good), and ]. I've just created ''']''', partly to reduce the length of the parent article ]. This could be turned into a useful page, though it's a big subject and would take some work — likewise discographies for other leading orchestras. --'']]'' 03:10, 15 May 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.
	== Alkan/Hamelin ==

			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)
	I am hoping fairly shortly to submit ] for GA. The article has for a long time contained the following quote attributed to Marc-André Hamelin: "The aspect of Alkan that is most apparent when people who don't know him listen to him for the first time is that his music is difficult to play...But in a way, I wish that it did not take a formidable technique...the great musical worth of Alkan's music makes it worthwhile to master those difficulties." It would be nice to keep this quote, (if genuine), but it has no source, nor have I found one - in fact the quote appears quite widely on the net, apparently taken from the article. Can anyone by chance supply a source? Other comments on the article are of course also welcome. --] (]) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (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? ] (]) 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)
			:::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)

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

WT:CM

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music

This 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

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:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chamber Music Northwest

---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:

WikiProject Classical music articles