| Revision as of 16:52, 31 May 2013 editTim riley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,454 edits problems of uniformity← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:15, 8 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,667,438 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (317 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown) |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|maindate=May 29, 2013 |
|
|maindate=May 29, 2013 |
|
|
|maindate2=April 6, 2021 |
|
|
|otd1date=2008-05-29|otd1oldid=215668244 |
|
|
|otd2date=2009-05-29|otd2oldid=293109914 |
|
|
|otd3date=2010-05-29|otd3oldid=364433464 |
|
|
|otd4date=2011-05-29|otd4oldid=431556141 |
|
|
|otd5date=2016-05-29|otd5oldid=722608045 |
|
|
|otd6date=2018-05-29|otd6oldid=843462159 |
|
|
|otd7date=2022-05-29|otd7oldid=1090179347 |
|
|
|otd8date=2024-05-29|otd8oldid=1225948045 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Rite Of Spring|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Classical music|class=FA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Classical music}} |
|
{{WikiProject Dance|class=FA|Ballet=yes|Ballet-importance=high|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=yes|Ballet-importance=top|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=FA|importance=High|perform=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|perform=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Music requested|small=no}} |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.7=pass|class=FA|category=Arts|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-05-29|oldid1=215668244|date2=2009-05-29|oldid2=293109914|date3=2010-05-29|oldid3=364433464|date4=2011-05-29|oldid4=431556141}} |
|
|
{{reqmusic|small=no}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 6 |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|algo = old(45d) |
|
|algo = old(45d) |
|
|archive = Talk:The Rite of Spring %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:The Rite of Spring/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=45 |small=no}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Most recorded classical repertoire? == |
|
== Dancing to death == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there. I understand under the "recordings" section, it is noted that it is the most recorded 20th century classical repertoire, I have no objection to that. Yet in the intro paragraph it simply said it was one of the most recorded repertoire in classical music. I find this statement will require very strong and much more comprehensive citations. I would suggest changing it to "one of the most recorded 20th century classical music" to be consistent with the citation. I also do not believe that there is any way to reliably track the number of recordings out there, and if so, what number of recording counts as "one of the most recorded" (top 10? top 50?) Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. ] (]) 23:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
How does this even work? Is it just death from exhaustion? ] (]) 18:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I find a useful and reliable guide. One has to be on the look-out for duplicate reissues, of course, but with that ''caveat'' I suggest you look there. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 15:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
:This is actually a ballet, so not necessarily based on 100% fact? But it can even work like ], allegedly. ] (]) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Okay, so I played around with the website. Could you kindly explain how the editor arrived at the conclusion that Rite of Spring is indeed "one of the most recorded" music? What is the methodology? You also did not address my concern that there is no way to effectively rank the number of recordings or reliably classify them. "most recorded" is also a vague term as it could mean top 3, top 10, top 50, top 100, etc. My recommendation is to change it to "most recorded 20th century classical music". Please let me know your thoughts. ] (]) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm afraid I cannot answer your question about the main author's thought processes as to my sorrow and that of countless other Wikipedians he died a year or so ago, and is still sorely missed. Let us see if there is consensus among other editors in favour of your proposed alteration, but a quick Googling throws up numerous references to the Rite as one of the most recorded works: see, for example, p. 18 '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 15:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
== Martial-v-marital == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
An IP altered this: "One of the young girls is selected by fate, being twice caught in the perpetual circle, and is honoured as the "Chosen One" with a martial dance" to change "martial" to "marital". I reverted the change but on second thoughts unreverted it. I'm not at all sure which is appropriate here, and would be glad of other editors' thoughts. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{Infobox ballet |
|
|
| name = The Rite of Spring |
|
|
| image = Gutza Misplaced Pages logo.png |
|
|
| image_size = 300px |
|
|
| caption = Part of ]'s designs for ]'s 1913 first production |
|
|
| native_name = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* ''{{lang-ru|Vesna svyashchennaya}}'' |
|
|
* ''{{lang-fr|Le Sacre du printemps}}'' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| native_name_lang = |
|
|
| choreographer = ] |
|
|
| composer = ] |
|
|
| librettist = |
|
|
| based_on = |
|
|
| premiere = {{Start date|1913|05|29|df=y}} |
|
|
| place = ] |
|
|
| ballet_company = ] |
|
|
| characters = |
|
|
| designer = ] |
|
|
| setting = |
|
|
| created_for = |
|
|
| genre = |
|
|
| type = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'd suggest we just say she's honoured with a dance. ] (]) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Why doesn't this article have an infobox? I propose that we add either {{tl|Infobox ballet}} (see example with suggested content, above) or, if that is not deemed suitable, {{tl|Infobox musical composition}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Am meeting SchroCat, Ian Rose and Cassianto this evening at the , where many happy hours were spent in the company of Brian Boulton, onlie begetter of this article. We shall raise a glass to him. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 14:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:"Why" is not important. This looks good to me ;) --] (]) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Well I don't think a marriage is part of the story at all, so 'marital' seems out of place. I assume BB's use of 'martial', was to evoke the warlike, intense atmosphere of the music, which seems fair-enough. If it is removed alla Nikkimaria, I'd suggest another synonym in its place, since the word "dance" alone may not properly convey the rather startling intensity it includes. Although I am a bit embarrassed to write this much about a single word! '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">]]</span>''' 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:ps: Isn't the native title in Russian? - The French one of the premiere is just above in the pic caption, --] (]) 14:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*”Martial” or just “dance” would be my thoughts, but how do the sources describe it? That’s normally the best place to get a proper steer. - ] (]) 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Thank you. I've changed to show both common non-English names. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Thanks, all. I've listened to the composer's recording and to Boulez's and have replaced the adjective with "forceful". No ] for this, but I think my tinkering will pass muster. '''<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;">]]</span>''' 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Can we add the two-letter language abbreviation somehow, or say otherwise that it is Russian and French? --] (]) 14:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Done. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}}{{tl|Infobox ballet}} is completely inappropriate and very misleading. This article is about the musical composition, not a specific ballet with a specific choreographer. Although the Nijinsky choreography was the one used at the premiere, and is the most famous, this work has been choreographed by many others. Observe the way this issue is appropriately handled at ] and the related articles on the ballets using that music. ] (]) 15:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Score changes == |
|
{{-}} |
|
|
=== Alternative === |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox musical composition |
|
|
| Name = The Rite of Spring |
|
|
| Cover = Gutza Misplaced Pages logo.png |
|
|
| Alt = |
|
|
| Caption = Part of ]'s designs for ]'s 1913 first production |
|
|
| Native_name = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* ''{{lang-ru|Vesna svyashchennaya}}'' |
|
|
* ''{{lang-fr|Le Sacre du printemps}}'' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| Composer = ] |
|
|
| Year = <!--{{Start date|YYYY}} (1583 & after only) --> |
|
|
| Form = |
|
|
| Key = |
|
|
| Catalogue = |
|
|
| Year = |
|
|
| Period = |
|
|
| Style = |
|
|
| Composed = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}}}|end_date={{End date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Performed = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Published = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Movements = |
|
|
| Scoring = |
|
|
| Scoring: = <!-- this and the following parameters if more precise scoring is known --> |
|
|
| Solo = |
|
|
| Solo voices = |
|
|
| Choir = |
|
|
| Instruments = |
|
|
| Obbligato = |
|
|
| Vocal = |
|
|
| Instrumental = |
|
|
| Related = |
|
|
| Premiere_date = {{Start date|1913|05|29|df=y}} |
|
|
| Premiere_conductor = |
|
|
| Premiere_location = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_performers = |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's an alternative, using {{tl|Infobox musical composition}}. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:A net detriment to this article. The image that goes at the top ] is reduced to a size that completely obviates its function and ruins the visual effect. '''Original''' is meaningless. Original what? The '''title''' under which this work is premiered is ''Le Sacre du printemps''. You've just used up the space which could have been used to display the image as it was intended to be displayed and replaced with it with large striped construction containing the exact same information (albeit misleadingly expressed) as is in the first three sentences of the article. ] (]) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::The width of thumbnail images in articles is a user-controlled setting; what you see may not be what other editors see. <s>"Original" means "Original name". If that's not a suitable label, a change can be proposed on the infobox's talk page.</s> What is "misleadingly expressed"? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Original" label changed to "Native name" in template. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{tl|Infobox ballet}} had an option for enlarging the image, and indeed it is enlarged in the current article. This one doesn't. The title information is not congruent with the style of articles used for classical compositions. '''Native name''' is ridiculous as a field, and misleading because it makes no distinction between the name under which it premiered and the Russian name. If you want to change the template to allow displaying the image in a larger than default thumbnail size, and fix the way the titles are expressed, do it, but an infobox that looks like it does now is in my opinion, a net detriment to this article. ] (]) 16:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== !Voting === |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''' any infobox. This was discussed back in December 2012 (see Archive 2) and the clear consensus was to NOT include any sort of infobox (80% against any box). ] ''']''' 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:The fact that this was discussed before, by small number of editors, does prevent a new discussion, especially with different editors involved. The December 2012 discussion also seems to have been misdirected by false claims ("it it a long-standing convention that Classical Music articles in general... do not have an infobox", etc.). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I expressed my opinion (Oppose) above. I also think it is useful when a topic has been raised before to note that in a current discussion, and did so. Thanks, ] ''']''' 17:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::PS I erred above - there were five editors opposed to an infobox in December 2012 and one in favor. I have placed the same notice on each of their talk pages, inviting them to participate in the discussion here. ] ''']''' 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''': I would like to thank Andy for waiting until yesterday's TFA was over before raising this issue. My oppose is based on the following: |
|
|
*All the information in the proposed infobox is contained within the first couple of lines in the article. It would seem, therefore, that its main purpose is to establish a principle rather than to assist readers of this article. |
|
|
*However limited the information is in the example presented, ''it is absolutely certain'' that once an infobox is in place, editors will try to extend the detail, adding stuff likely to mislead or misrepresent. These editors won't necessarily know much or anything about music. Thus there are likely to be constant battles, not only on this but on other music articles, diverting energies and attention away from the scholarly research required to prepare better articles. This is something that I care about and I think is more important than infoboxes. |
|
|
*On a small point of presentation, why should the superb Roerich design, which I think is a real draw factor for the article, be squeezed into the confines of an infobox? |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure what Andy means when he talks about misdirection by "false claims". It is certainly true, in my experience, that the majority of editors who work on music articles are infobox-averse. Gerda may be an honourable exception; let us see if others will reveal themselves. ] (]) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Infobox musical composition |
|
|
| Name = The Rite of Spring |
|
|
| Cover = Gutza Misplaced Pages logo.png |
|
|
| Alt = |
|
|
| Caption = Part of ]'s designs for ]'s 1913 first production |
|
|
{{Collapsed infobox section begin|Brief summary}} |
|
|
| Native_name = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* ''{{lang-ru|Vesna svyashchennaya}}'' |
|
|
* ''{{lang-fr|Le Sacre du printemps}}'' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| Composer = ] |
|
|
| Year = <!--{{Start date|YYYY}} (1583 & after only) --> |
|
|
| Form = |
|
|
| Key = |
|
|
| Catalogue = |
|
|
| Year = |
|
|
| Period = |
|
|
| Style = |
|
|
| Composed = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}}}|end_date={{End date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Performed = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Published = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Movements = |
|
|
| Scoring = |
|
|
| Scoring: = <!-- this and the following parameters if more precise scoring is known --> |
|
|
| Solo = |
|
|
| Solo voices = |
|
|
| Choir = |
|
|
| Instruments = |
|
|
| Obbligato = |
|
|
| Vocal = |
|
|
| Instrumental = |
|
|
| Related = |
|
|
| Premiere_date = {{Start date|1913|05|29|df=y}} |
|
|
| Premiere_conductor = |
|
|
| Premiere_location = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_performers = |
|
|
{{Collapsed infobox section end}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''': An infobox is not needed for this article, as per the very good arguments above. There is no requirement to have an infobox on any page, but they do serve a very good purpose from time to time: this is not one of those times, however. If push comes to shove, then perhaps a <nowiki>{{Collapsed infobox}}</nowiki> by way of compromise may appease those who wish to see additional information repeated, although this will have the adverse effect of shrinking the excellent image, which would be a backwards step in this article's development. - ] (]) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''': Thanks to Ruhrfisch for notifying. Andy has elsewhere explained to me about the multifarious sizes of screen on which readers now access Misplaced Pages, and also about useful metadata (if I have the term right) that info-boxes carry. Points taken, but as things are at present I still think the balance of advantage lies in omitting boxes, leaving room for the maximum amount of text. (There are some types of article e.g. politician bios and cricket where I think info-boxes are helpful to the reader, but this isn't one such, IMO.) And, as a purely personal preference, I share BB's and SchroCat's dislike of top r.h. images shrunk to pygmy size to fit in boxes. ] (]) 18:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''' any infobox in this article. This article is better off without the infobox, which would contain only redundant information. Redundancies create ambiguity, especially as infoboxes are prone to contain errors and accumulate typos and cruft. The article ] contains an excellent overview of the article and would not be enhanced by an infobox. None of the suggested infoboxes emphasize the most important information, as the narrative LEAD section does so well. Indeed, I cannot imagine an infobox for this article that would present the important information acceptably. The infobox would also limit the size of the attractive and helpful opening image. I also think that starting the article with the infobox template would discourage new editors from editing the article. This article has been reviewed by numerous reviewers, and the consensus has always been that it does not need an infobox. These repeated attempts to change the consensus, can be viewed cynically as opportunistic. The box would waste space at the top of article with repeated information. The reader's attention should be directed immediately into the key information of the article, which is well-presented in the LEAD. -- ] (]) 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support''', with preference for collapsed infobox. Yes, the image is indeed excellent, but it makes the article currently look like it's about '''a painting'''. What is really needed, dare I say it, is an image of dancers - but obviously not easy to come by. I also fully respect Voceditenore's view that it was to start with, and has become more of, an orchestral piece. All that said, I'd personally still prefer to see a box. I think the opera articles, with a good picture of the composer, all look excellent. ] (]) 19:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think this touches on a key point: the ] tends to use a ballet info-box. This is not a problem when the article is about a ballet by one choreographer, e.g. ], but is, IMO, dreadfully misleading to the reader when applied to a ballet ''score'' that dozens of choreographers have used, as in '']''. I think ''The Rite'' is very much in the latter category. – ] (]) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have to agree with you Tim. I think what I'm personally looking for is something like ] but with a bit of detail, about composer and history, available on demand. ] (]) 20:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Oppose''' any infobox as in my opinion, they cater for the lazy reader. Infoboxes are hugely repetitive, aesthetically ugly and offer nothing to the visiting reader other than redundent (and in most cases) pointless information. <s>We as the authors</s> As an author, I '''want''' people to read my contributions which I have written and researched for many months. To encourage readers to simply rely on the text within the infobox, does nothing for the potential educational values which our articles have to offer. Everything within an infobox can be (or should be) given in the lead section, which would make its inclusion grossly repetetive. Please let's not add another eyesore to another beautifully crafted article. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 19:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Comment: "We as the authors ..." - I as an author like to serve both the reader who looks for a quick information as the one who wants to study the details, - I am obviously not part of that "we". I would prefer not to vote yet but think about content and presentation. I think {{tl|Infobox musical composition}} fits this one better. The lead picture could be a different one, for example the one shown on the Main page, with the scene design presented later in the article, in performance history. If the scene image is misleading in an infobox, it's misleading for the article also, --] (]) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::You quote me but use it to describe your own view, which doesn't ''quite'' make it a quote does it. Everything one needs to know quickly can be accessed from the first few lines or paragraphs of the lede. That makes it repetitive and redundant. -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I may have language problems. If you say "We as the authors ..." and give your own view, I feel that I don't belong to that "we" but still think I am an author. More important: I read here again and again that the infobox is repetitive/redundant. Yes, of course it is, it is has to be or would be wrong, no? --] (]) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Or you may not. I know exactly what you mean. And I agree with what you are saying. ] (]) 22:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Gerda, I have struck my ignorant "we" comment. I can assure you that your English is good, and that it was my "assume everybody shares my view" view that caused the problem there. I also want to cater for the "need quick information now" community, but I prefer to give that information within the lead section. Also, to take up a point I read earlier (which I struggle to find now), I am wholly in favour of keeping the current image. It is stunning and should not be swapped (IMO) ;) --'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
'''Oppose:''' I totally agree with those who find the infobox to be redundant to a properly-written first paragraph (lead). I also agree with Tim Riley that a number of issues remain concerning the categorization of a ''ballet'' and the ''music written for'' a ballet. After all, the ''score'' for ''The Rite of Spring'' is no more the ''ballet'' than the ''scenario'' or the ''costume designs.'' I've noted inconsistency among the "top title" for various ballets ... some are simply listed by the name of the musical composition (as this one), others are listed as "Composition (ballet)". This makes life difficult for editors who want to provide accurate wikilinks within articles. Seems to me attention to this question would be more profitable than infoboxes. It might be a good idea to create a general template for ballet and ballet-related works. After the general lead, one could have (for example) individual sections on ''scenario,'' ''score,'' ''productions,'' (which should include not only the work of individual choreographers, perhaps in chronological order, but also set and costume designers as appropriate. Any thoughts? |
|
|
] (]) 22:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:There may be some merit in agreeing a recommended general layout for ballet articles, as is already the case for opera articles. But this has to be flexible; each work has its own circumstances and character, and emphases will differ. I would strongly oppose any kind of robotic approach to article-writing; in fact I would retire on the spot if such a thing were enforced, which I am sure is not your intention. However, let's stick to the infobox issue for the moment. ] (]) 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think Yankeecook has some very good ideas. ] (]) 22:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So far we seem to have a consensus so far as an info-box for the ''Rite of Spring/'' article is concerned. More generally, there is a generic ballet info-box template <nowiki>{{Infobox Ballet}}</nowiki> but however much it were tweaked it isn't obvious how it could cope with the very valid distinctions you make between the score and Mr A's and Ms B's productions of the ballet etc. That, perhaps, is a matter for another page. ] (]) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Brianboulton: Totally agree about flexibility -- which is one of my objections to infobox. Martinevans123: Thanks for the compliment. Tim riley: Agree that this should be discussed more generally elsewhere ... please suggest ''where'' and I hope we can take this up. |
|
|
] (]) 23:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Infobox facts === |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox musical composition |
|
|
| Name = ''The Rite of Spring'' |
|
|
| image = RiteofSpringDancers.jpg |
|
|
| Alt = |
|
|
| Caption = Dancers in the original production |
|
|
| Native_name = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* ''{{lang-ru|Vesna svyashchennaya}}'' |
|
|
* ''{{nowrap|{{lang-fr|Le Sacre du printemps}}''}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| Composer = ] |
|
|
| Year = <!--{{Start date|YYYY}} (1583 & after only) --> |
|
|
| Form = Ballet |
|
|
| Catalogue = |
|
|
| Composed = {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1911}}|end_date={{End date|1913}}|location=]}} |
|
|
| Published = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Movements = 13 in two parts |
|
|
| Scoring = Symphony orchestra |
|
|
| Premiere_date = {{Start date|1913|05|29|df=y}} |
|
|
| Premiere_conductor = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_location = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_performers = ] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
I don't believe that voting helps to decide if this article deserves an infobox or if an infobox would "damage" it (a phrase user on Richard Wagner). I suggest we try to talk about a good infobox and then see if it can be taken to the article. My start is shown here. We may improve both the infobox and the template. For example, I changed the order in "Premiere", to not have "location" between "conductor" and "performers", --] (]) 11:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi Gerda, I think that seems a little bit "cart-before-the-horse" really, and a drain on everyone's scant available time. Why not discuss the merits or otherwise of inclusion of an infobox, rather than spending countless amount of time discussing individual fields of something that probably won't even get onto the page? If it is agreed that an infobox is a "good idea" for the page, then the discussion of the minutiae can take place once people are happy with the concept. All the best - ] (]) 11:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I really think to have the repeated "no infobox here" arguments for every article is a waste of everyone's time. (This is not even a composer.) Nobody is obliged to participate in one or the other kind of waste. - It is tricky to determine if an infobox is a good idea if you don't know what will be in that box. - I will not waste my time calling people to support ;) --] (]) 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Part of the problem is that we already ''know'' what will be in the infobox: an overly small image sitting on top of the bullet-pointed contents of the lead. The particular sub-species of infobox is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things; the concept of overly-simplified tid-bits sitting like a malignant growth in the top right-hand corner of the article is the bigger hurdle to get over. - ] (]) 11:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's notable that (once again) the opposition to an infobox for ''this'' article rests mostly on arguments (many of them facile) against infoboxes ''per se'' ("waste space", "repetition", "cater for the lazy reader", " room for the maximum amount of text", "beautifully crafted article", "overly simplified", malignant growth") which are not about the article in question. The use of an infobox ''here'' may have been ''out!voted'', but it hasn't been ''out-argued''. Those who oppose the use of infoboxes at all, or for whole classes of articles are again invited to raise an RfC to prohibit them. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Somewhat unsurprisingly, I think your summary does a disservice to those above who have put forward arguments. I also note that you haven't put forward any arguments for the inclusion of an infobox. Rather than besmirch the thoughts of others, perhaps you could positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? - ] (]) 12:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
{{Infobox musical composition |
|
|
| Name = ''The Rite of Spring''<br />by ] |
|
|
| image = RiteofSpringDancers.jpg |
|
|
| Alt = |
|
|
| Caption = Dancers in the original 1913 production |
|
|
{{Collapsed infobox section begin|Quick summary}} |
|
|
| Native_name = {{plainlist| |
|
|
* ''{{lang-ru|Vesna svyashchennaya}}'' |
|
|
* ''{{nowrap|{{lang-fr|Le Sacre du printemps}}''}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
| Year = <!--{{Start date|YYYY}} (1583 & after only) --> |
|
|
| Form = Ballet |
|
|
| Catalogue = |
|
|
| Composed = {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1911}}|end_date={{End date|1913}}|location=]}} |
|
|
| Published = <!-- {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}}|location=}} --> |
|
|
| Movements = 13 in two parts |
|
|
| Scoring = Symphony orchestra |
|
|
| Premiere_date = {{Start date|1913|05|29|df=y}} |
|
|
| Premiere_conductor = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_location = ] |
|
|
| Premiere_performers = ] |
|
|
{{Collapsed infobox section end}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
::::(ec) Not necessarily so, - in reply to SchroCat. I don't like the collapsed section variety, but it is possible, see for example ]. --] (]) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Again, it's a such a small image. If you could enlarge to the size of the one on the current page, there may be favour to be found with some. I don't like infoboxes on a number of articles, but when they are foisted onto articles, this is a compromise that may work, but only if the image size can be sorted appropriately. - ] (]) 12:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Did you actually look at ]? It can be done, but would be a waste of space here ;) --] (]) 12:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I did. It's not as good as a straight image of a decent size, but it's a compromise that some will be happy with. - ] (]) 12:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can somebody please check if the two edits to scores (violin to cello and tuba to trombone) made on 11 March are correct? ] (]) 05:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
First: Gerda Arendt -- How can you say that "voting isn't hepful to decide ..." when there is an overwhelming vote ''''against'''' an infobox? Furthermore, in your "suggested" example, there are already a number of factual and/or misleading errors. First, ''The Rite'' wasn't composed between 1911 and 1913 (it was largely composed during that time, but was, in fact, begun earlier; second, it was not composed "at Clarens" -- it was ''partly'' composed at Clarens; third, it does not contain 13 "movements" (it contains two tableaux); fourth, "ballet" is not a "form" (but rather a "genre"); fifth, it is not scored for "Symphony Orchestra" (whatever that is ...) it is scored for a very specific orchestra specified by Stravinsky down to the last detail! That's why I believe "infoboxes" are really "disinfoboxes." PLEASE ... let's move on ... and let's give some thought to the questions raised earlier concerning how best to relate ballets (the production/staging/choreography) to their musical scores. Thanks. ] (]) 16:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Presumably, she says that says that because Misplaced Pages is not a democracy; we do not decide things by votes. You'll notice that I referred at the head of this section, to "suggested content". It is precisely so that such matters can be thrashed out that I stated this discussion. Taking the dates as an example, I can see no reference in the article body to any music being written before 1911; if it is there, it's too opaque - it's certainly not in the lede - and having the ''correct'' dates in an infobox will enable them to be quickly located. I also note that this "beautifully crafted article" includes a table naming the components of the work, called movements (the word "tableaux" does not appear in the article), which are thirteen in number. Will you be removing that? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::As per my comment above, could you please positively add to the discussion with your thoughts as to why this particular article, in your view, would benefit from an infobox? You wish for the article to change: perhaps you could explain on what basis you consider the proposed infobox to be an improvement? - ] (]) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I didn't notice any suggestion, above, that we should scrap info-boxes for all ballet articles. I think they are quite helpful for certain ballets, but not for all. I am unsure where best to pursue this, but it seems to me that unlike, say, operas, where Wagner's ''Siegfried'' is Wagner's ''Siegfried'', there are four different types of ballet article. Ones like this, where the piece has become better known as a concert work; ones with original music subsequently used by many later choreographers (e.g. ]; ones with original music where there is only one notable version ]''; and ones using existing music, e.g. '']''. Each of these has, it seems to me, different requirements, and the ballet info-box template is not up to coping with the various permutations. Perhaps it would be better to pursue this on the relevant template talk page? ] (]) 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
Hi there. I understand under the "recordings" section, it is noted that it is the most recorded 20th century classical repertoire, I have no objection to that. Yet in the intro paragraph it simply said it was one of the most recorded repertoire in classical music. I find this statement will require very strong and much more comprehensive citations. I would suggest changing it to "one of the most recorded 20th century classical music" to be consistent with the citation. I also do not believe that there is any way to reliably track the number of recordings out there, and if so, what number of recording counts as "one of the most recorded" (top 10? top 50?) Let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Kazuha1029 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
An IP altered this: "One of the young girls is selected by fate, being twice caught in the perpetual circle, and is honoured as the "Chosen One" with a martial dance" to change "martial" to "marital". I reverted the change but on second thoughts unreverted it. I'm not at all sure which is appropriate here, and would be glad of other editors' thoughts. Tim riley talk 13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Can somebody please check if the two edits to scores (violin to cello and tuba to trombone) made on 11 March are correct? JennyOz (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
