Talk:Early music of the British Isles

Timeline: horror graphic?

The timeline here is probably the worst I've ever seen on WP. Can we delete it? What do people think? --Kleinzach 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to correct one subtly glaring error: James VI -> James VI (click both for fun...) Then again he is actually (see redirect) James I of England according to Wiki (wrongly, IMHO). Anyway, there must be a way to avoid the silly duplication of monarchs: Scots and English side by side on the same line, then merge after James VI&I (retitled to that name, also retitling James VII&II)? Or is the timeline irredeemable?--Jubilee♫clipman 02:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting what was simply a typo. The problem is that if we try to integrate the monarchs then that we would have to put a third section in for joint monarchs (making the table even bigger), or decide to include them as a continuation of either English or Scotish monarchs, which rather marginalises one country.--SabreBD (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be worth contacting User:Bodnotbod (identified in the timeline code as the author) to ask about improvements/concerns. Baby&bathwater, and all that. I do agree that it needs improvement: Specifically, I'd like to see the typeface enlarged to the same size as the article text (especially (perhaps only) for the "Composers" section). 1 or 2 sentences introducing the timeline might be useful for clarifications of scope/omission. -- Quiddity (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for User:Bodnotbod. --Kleinzach 01:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is useful to know what exactly the problem is. Font size is pretty easy to fix. I have increased it all to medium. Is this an improvement and is it sufficient? I wonder whether events could go above the composers so that they are sort of in the middle of the table, so that it is easier to compare them with reigns.--SabreBD (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Right. First off the graphic is too wide, it's disproportionate to the text. Second, three-quarters of the thing refers to politics not music. Third the top (music) section) doesn't seem to convey any special information that could not be provided by a simple list. Of course I'd be delighted to learn of any special meanings implied in the graphic that I have overlooked! My impression however is that it does not add anything of interest to the article. --Kleinzach 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The size of the font was increased to the above suggestion that it was hard to read. It can be reduced again. To reiterate suggestions that have been made and to add a few more:

• Move the composers to the 'middle' of the table, which would make them easier to compare with events/monarchs.
• Find some viable way to combine English and Scottish monarchs (at least after 1604)
• We could delete all the Scottish monarchs and leave the English (later British ones)
• We could just remove all the monarchs and leave the events, which take up a lot less space and provide some sort of framework.

There is of course a good reason for including monarchs, as this is probably the most likely point of reference for readers and in this period there clearly is a link between monarchs/politics and the production of music. However, although I did a lot of work to make this appropriate to the article after revisions, I am not fundamentally committed to it. I would point out that it does appear at the foot of the article and readers do always have the option of ignoring it if they do not find it useful.--SabreBD (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to spend more time on this if it's likely to end up being deleted anyway? This method of making a graphic is out of date, just like the ASCII pictures people used to make. It's easy to fiddle around with them, but very hard to get a good result. Maybe it would be prudent to just abandon it and let it go? It's not integral to the article. --Kleinzach 12:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I created the timeline and, as such, perhaps I shouldn't be allowed to express a view :o)

I haven't looked at it for years and I do confess it's pretty ugly looking now I see it again. I created it when this article was (if I remember rightly) a UK collaboration of the week. Obviously I would be delighted if it could be rescued but I won't go into an edit war if the consensus is to remove it from the article. Perhaps a compromise would be to let the timeline stay on the wiki somewhere, remove it from the article and have a link to it from the article?

Someone mentioned that 'this method of creating graphics is out of date'. Does this mean we now have new timelining software or code? Anyhow, as I say, I'll abide by whatever consensus is reached. I remember it took me many hours to complete but I acknowledge that that isn't reason enough to disregard public opinion. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now I think of it a bit more. If you do remove it, perhaps you could place it here on the talk page. I know that would be a slightly novel use of a talk page, but I see little harm in it. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for responding Bodnotbod and thanks for creating the original. It is not unusual to place removed material on the talkpage in case at some later date there is a good reason to put them back, I would suggest if we do that we do it in a much reduced form. It might be worth doing if we want to have easy access to the data in the future, perhaps to faciliate creation of a new timeline. It is quite possible that this article will be split in two (see below), so this issue will have an impact on 3 articles: this one, a "Baroque music of the British Isles" article and the other bit of the original timeline that is on Classical music of the United Kingdom. Such a split might help the look of the timeline (because it have less data), but given Kleinzach's comment on new methods of doing these things, my feeling is that we should work out something that can be used for all three articles (perhaps Klenizach can point us in the right direction here) - at some future date and take them off the 2 existing articles. Obviously we should post about the deletion on the Classical music page and allow a bit of time there, but it doesn't look as if there are going to be major objections on this page, so it could be done soon.--SabreBD (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the above discussion here I have opened a new section here for discussion of the timeline across the possible three articles.--SabreBD (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sabrebd: I tried to fix your link but it just goes to an article. Did you mean here? --Kleinzach 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I have fixed it now.--SabreBD (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Klein, I'm still interested to know if Wikimedia has some new timelining software/code... so if you know of any please put up a link. If you're not aware of any, then please let me know too. It's purely out of curiosity, I don't see myself making any timelines in the near future but I like to know what's out there. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not provide software, you have to use your own. See here, No. 7: "Use JPEG format for photographic images; SVG format for icons, logos, drawings, maps, flags, and such; PNG format for software screenshots and when only a raster image is available; GIF format for inline animations; and Ogg/Theora for video." So SVG is preferred. --Kleinzach 12:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe he meant is there newer "timeline code", such that any editor would be able to improve things over time (without having to learn photoshop/gimp/inkscape/etc), and link items without having to use imagemap code. (He was asking because of your statement "This method of making a graphic is out of date [...]".)

EasyTimeline is all we have, as far as I know. I don't think it should be abandoned over subjective aesthetic disapproval though. Regard it as a stub - it just needs improvement/refinement. (both the code itself, and these specific timelines we're discussing). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on the Classical music project here, we propose to remove the present timeline. --Kleinzach 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --Kleinzach 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Early music': is the 1800 cut-off too late?

'Early music' normally refers to the music of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, but this article extends down to 1800. Should it be pruned back? I've referred this question to the Classical music project, see here. --Kleinzach 02:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Early music groups today

Shouldn't this article also reflect that there are many early music groups in the British Isles today (since the 20th century)? That is what I had expected to find here when seeing this article title. Badagnani (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Revival

Now that this is is really focusing on "early music", should we have a section on the Early Music revival of twentieth century (Dolmetsch, Munrow, Hunt et al)? Bluewave (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, maybe I'm just agreeing with the section above. Bluewave (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection as long as it meets the usual critera. Historically informed performance would perhaps be what we would expect to summarise, but it has many problems (not least an almost total lack of sources).--SabreBD (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Why is this article not called Early music of the United Kingdom, or of Britain, etc? This would fit in with other similar articles about music in Britain. There is hardly any mention of music in Ireland in the article. I suggest a change of name. Hohenloh ⁺ 23:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It cannot be Early Music of the UK because there was no UK before 1801 and Britain implies a political unity that didnt exist in this period.--SabreBD (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Britain does not imply political unity; it is the name of the island. These names are politically hot any which way; there is a whole section of wikipedia on the naming of Britain and Ireland. Anyway it seems to me that the article is really "Historical music of England" because there is almost nothing about Wales and Scotland - except for when those countries interact with England, there are just brief asides basically, but entire sections on the genres and institutions of English music. StrumStrumAndBeHanged (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There are in fact six references to Scottish music and not just when it interacts with England. There are pretty much bound to be less references to Ireland and Wales because of a lack of sources and a central court that acted as a focus for church and art music. If anyone has more information about these countries with reliable sources they should feel free to add it. It would be very welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)