Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Hespèrion

I noticed, that there are two very similar articles (Hespèrion XX and Hespèrion XXI) about the Hesperion ensemble. They contain nearly the same information except the discography section. There is also a note about this in talk page of the XXI version. I think that the existence of these two articles is unnecessary and they should be merged together. --Tomaxer (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kleinzach 00:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, seeing as how the history of the former group ends when the latter begins. ALTON .ıl 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, it's the same ensemble [1], [2]. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing supposedly about it. They changed their name when the new century hit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, it's not necessary to merge both articles. The informations about the ensemble are identical in both articles, and the "selected recordings" section in the Hespèrion XX article is rather chaotic, this is not representative selection of their recordings on Alia Vox. I think, it's possible to delete the article Hespèrion XX. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Music history categories Is it "classical music" or "European art music"?

I'm in the process of working through the "Music history" category hierarchy and I have a question. I used Category:History of European art music, but should I have used "History of European classical music"? It's called "art music" in a lot of places: for example {{History of European art music}}, and the section in History of music. If I was wrong, it seems to me this has to be changed in a lot of places throughout Wikipedia. (I have a feeling this has been discussed before. What was the consensus?) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly clarify what "working through the "Music history" category" means? Are you reviewing the hierarchy in some way or are you creating new categories? We need to understand the context of your question before we can give you a good answer. Obviously this is a problematic area. --Kleinzach 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been a little more clear. This is my question: are we calling it "Classical music" or "European art music"? Both terms are being used in Wikipedia. Is one of them preferred?

Basically "classical music" is used in most cases (I don't think "European art music" is popular.) However most people in the so-called classical music world dislike the term as anachronistic (confused with the classical music era of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven etc.). (I personally prefer the expression 'mainstream' or 'mainstream classical'). --Kleinzach 07:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(As to your other question, cleaning up a category hierarchy is basically a housekeeping job that involves examining every article in the hierarchy and making judgments about where they belong. It can also include adding new categories or restructuring existing ones as necessary. A reader should be able to navigate easily through the category hierarchy and get a feeling for the subject as a whole. I also make sure the main articles are marked as such and the sort order is correct. At the most extreme, it's also good to check that the nav templates work correctly and that main articles that use WP:Summary style are covering the category as a whole.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be done by the project editors? The people who know the subject? Music is a subject - like science or languages - where you need some technical knowledge. --Kleinzach 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote for "classical". --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Open access article on the Oxford DNB: Music in Britain: 1905 and after

Music in Britain: 1905 and after is a current Featured Essay on The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some of you may find it useful. I'm not sure how long it will remain open access. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Florida International University

I found the {{Classical}} template on Talk:Florida International University but can't see how FIU falls under the scope of this project. I removed it for now but was wondering if anyone could answer that for me. Thanks! Digx (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the article page Florida International University you will see it is in Category:Music schools in the United States - that's why it had the banner. But is this a mistake? If so the category should be removed. --Kleinzach 13:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use issues

Please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force#Fair_use_issues --Ravpapa (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Expert-attention needed cat

I checked backlinks, so if you guys knew of this categories existence sorry for bringing this up. Either way, the category of question is here, do you think this would be one to add to the project page? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 04:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I know this cat (and similar ones) exist. When you ask "do you think this would be one to add to the project page" what do have in mind? Listing the articles? If so I'm not in favour (the cat is used too randomly to be of much use) but perhaps you meant something else? --Kleinzach 03:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just a link to the category, so the experts that come here know where people are asking for help. Just an idea. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's easier - and will be more prominent - to list the articles here and now: 24 Caprices for Solo Violin (Paganini), Antiphonary, Esko Laine, Louis Lambillotte, Major scale, Rhythmic mode, Voicing (music). Would anyone like to have go at them? --Kleinzach 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming portal schedule

I'm currently working on a schedule for the featured articles/bios/pictures for the Portal:Classical music (I would have placed this message at the appropriate talk page, but this one receives generally more traffic). Any collaboration is welcomed at User:La Pianista/sandbox. The matter isn't pressing, but I'm quickly running out of ideas.

Thank you! —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 05:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have archived "Selected article", "Selected biography", "Selected picture" for October - Jay (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I suppose I've forgotten to do that... —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting opinions

A little while ago I expanded the article List of composers for lute. It used to be a very incomplete, badly formatted list, which, for some reason, was also copied by someone to Lute#Lute repertoire and to Category:Composers for lute. Well, I expanded the list greatly, fixed all formatting issues, etc., and removed the incomplete lists from both Lute and the category. I figured that "Lute repertoire" should be a decent amount of information on various genres, national styles and such, rather than a very incomplete list of composers with a few very basic facts thrown in. So I kept these basic facts and replaced the very incomplete list with a link to the newly expanded List of composers for lute.

However, my edit was reverted by User:Lute88: he removed the link to the new list, wrote yet another short, very incomplete list, and his edit summary was completely beside the point ("restore the list, different from category".. what?) I brought the issue up at the talk page, explaining my position, and asked Lute88 to clarify his. However, all I got from him was a single sentence and I'm kind of stumped, I have no idea how to continue the discussion with someone who doesn't even reply to most of your points. So, as of now, Lute does not have a link to the expanded list, and instead has a rather badly formatted incomplete list with duplicate entries.

Lute music isn't a particularly popular subject, so I decided to ask for opinions here rather than simply wait for more reactions at Talk:Lute - those may never come. Basically, my suggestion is that "Lute repertoire" should be expanded (I can do this, but later), with NO lists whatsoever but simply a link to List of composers for lute. That link should be present even now - what is the point of having a list which the main article does not link to? --Jashiin (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Jashiin, you are right. I've removed the list and added a main article template link to the composer's page. I've also watched the page and will revert back any unexplained attempt simply to reinsert the Composer article. Eusebeus (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just expanded the section with a wealth of details. Hopefully this will eliminate the issue of adding incomplete lists to make up for lack of information. (I tried my best to be brief, but its hard to be brief in such cases.. Anyway, in the future, probably a separate Lute repertoire article, similar to Organ repertoire, won't hurt; and then we'll link to it from Lute.) --Jashiin (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music

This article is up for deletion here if any members wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A merger was agreed but never implemented. I've made it into a redirect. Hope that's OK with everyone. (The original 'Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music' text is on the Susan McClary talk page.) --Kleinzach 02:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-direct was a good idea. Actually, I already had 'merged' it in a way - during the the AfD discussion. I wrote a section in the Susan McClary article about the essay, with a short summary of the ideas in it, its various versions, and the documented reaction to it with inline citations. See here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Hello everyone. Could someone please review the article Schubert's last sonatas for the GA review? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Adrian Adlam

This article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Adlam for members who wish to participate in the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock Farm shut down

For the attention of classical music editors, be aware that a massive sock farm was shut down earlier this month, which included a number of "editors" active in our project: Horn of Plenty (talk · contribs), Floristan (talk · contribs), Anton Mravcek (talk · contribs) and Jindřichův_Smith (talk · contribs) are all the same editor. This tag-team had earlier disrupted several Haydn symphony pages and there may be that additional topics have been the subject of concerted intervention. While the contributions made by these socks are not necessarily bad - indeed, the contrary - editors who run across these names in our articles should nonetheless be aware that this disruptive practice was going on. Eusebeus (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm just seeing this. I had no idea. These guys singlehandedly (it turns out) created almost all of the Michael Haydn symphony articles and many of the low-number Joseph Haydn symphony articles that were done to complete the set. Disruption is a bit harsh of a term, at least for what was done in this wikiproject. It was mainly style issues... "they" liked to merge subsections that were very short and "they" often created discography sections which are handy for Michael Haydn's works (which are seldom recorded) but don't really scale up to more commonly recorded pieces. There was some edit/revert stuff due to this type of thing, but these seemed to be reasonable editorial disagreements and pretty mild compared to most other disputes around here. Anyhow, "they" did add a lot of good hard citations for a number of details pertaining to these works. I certainly can't condone this sockpuppetry, though. Its creepy to recall posting to one of these guys' talk pages notifying them about a discussion on another one of his own pages. That's certainly a nasty way to get votes on your side of a dispute. Looks like he's gone for good. Still, I'm going to miss those good citations. Its too bad he couldn't stick to just one account. DavidRF (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I do remember J. Smith as being particularly active, seeing that name in many discussions and many edit histories. Well, what must be done must be done. ALTON .ıl 06:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

ArticleAlertbot

This is a new service by Legoktm, coded by B. Wolterding who also did the useful 'Cleanup Listings' used by some projects.

ArticleAlertbot provides notification of all proposed deletions, AFDs, GA/FA nominations, RFCs etc etc. for articles with project banners. The explanation is here. Should we subscribe? Best. --Kleinzach 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bach Cantatas

Today I came across these recently created articles: BWV 66 and BWV 17. I've put the {{Classical|composition=yes}} banner on their talk pages. Unlike all the other Bach cantata articles, they're named by their BMV numbers instead of their incipits, although both have redirects from them. Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved the pages to their "incipit" names to match the other cantatas. --DavidRF (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Piano Ballades

Another one I stumbled across today. It has several problems, not the least of which is that it was a direct page move from a user page. See Talk:Piano Ballades for more. Voceditenore (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing article

We don't seem to have either an article at viola da braccia or indeed viola da braccio (a redirect). Before I create something I thought I'd check if it's just that my Google-fu is weak today. Have we removed or merged such an article? The arm viol is not the same as its modern descendant, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought viola da braccio was used to distingish it from a viola de gamba, much like traverse flute vs. what we now call a recorder. Still the redirect should probably go to viola instead. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

James Chater at AfD

This apparently self-created article on a British composer & musicologist is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater. Expert opinion would be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a coincidence for you. I'm in the middle of re-writing Luca Marenzio after his butchery as part of a school class project, and along comes the world expert on Luca Marenzio, writing his own biography on Wikipedia. Whoa. Antandrus (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. I deprodded the article, but it's so far from my area of competence that I wasn't confident commenting in the AfD discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome ... specialist musicologists are almost never known to the world at large (unless they are cousins of famous scientists). Writing an autobio is a common newbie mistake; I wish we could keep some of these experts as at least occasional editors of things other than their own bio. Oh well. Antandrus (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Enrique Máximo García at AfD

Another musicologist in need of expert opinion in the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrique Máximo García. Apologies for not noticing this one earlier. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 'No consensus to delete'. --Kleinzach 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with Albinoni?

I've just been doing the vocal music sections of the List of compositions by Tomaso Albinoni. I wonder if anyone would be interested in taking on the instrumental music? There are some good lists on the French and German wiki. Best. --Kleinzach 08:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help. Working on it now. --Jashiin (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) UPD: Done. --Jashiin (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! --Kleinzach 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark Wigglesworth

If some editors would like to take a look at Mark Wigglesworth and comment on the discussion there, it would be helpful. Thanks! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Music for the Royal Fireworks

Hello, quick question: why is the page on Händel's music for the royal fireworks at Fireworks Music? While I can sympathize with laziness, the article doesn't really use this short form anywhere, nor was it known to me beforehand. It seems strange to me that it's not just at Music for the Royal Fireworks. I realize this may be a Color of the bikeshed discussion, but still, I thought I'd ask before being bold. :-) Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's odd to call it Fireworks Music. --Kleinzach 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It probably should be moved, but it's not all that odd, since it's commonly referred to that way, including on the spine of one of my recordings (Gardiner on Phillips 50 series). There are also two scores on the IMSLP, one of which has a cover page with "Firework Music" and the other no page at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I moved it and corrected all the links that I thought I could touch (leaving out ones on talk pages etc.). Cheers! Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Article title of composer

Should the article currently at Sir William Leighton be moved to "William Leighton" or be left where it is? I moved it to the latter title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage, which generally discourages the use of titles like "sir" in article titles. I then moved it back after discovering that the same guideline says that titles like "sir" should be used where the person is known almost exclusively by that name (e.g. Lord Frederick Cavendish). A quicdk Google search turnned up many instances of "Sir William Leighton" used for the composer, but not so many for just "William Leighton". He doesn't seem to be very well-known anyway, but I thought I'd check first. Graham87 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Sir. And incidentally thanks to Gijs Kruitbosch for pointing us to Color of the bikeshed, which, if anyone else comments here, would definitely be relevant to this discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And I vote for no Sir. --Kleinzach 03:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose sir. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back to William Leighton and removed instances of "sir" used with his name, as it's not commonly used in articles about cliassical music. I'm not sure on the conventions about that sort of thing. Graham87 13:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there's a redirect, I don't think there should be any great problem. --Kleinzach 23:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Moves automatically make redirects, so it doesn't really make much of an impact if the article has low to moderate traffic. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Classical songs at Cfd

This new cat. is at Categories for discussion because of concerns about ambiguity, see here. --Kleinzach 03:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This has now been re-named Category:Songs in classical music. --Kleinzach 07:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about use of audio and templates

There is a discussion at this thread on ANI about the use of templates for audio files, as well as the suitability of long media sections in articles. Any comments would be appreciated. Graham87 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you possible give us a short explanation/summary of this issue. I've had a look and it seems very complicated. --Kleinzach 06:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops I didn't read this message until now. [[User:MelonBot, manually assisted by User:Happy-melon, changed most instances of Template:Multi-listen item to Template:Listen. This apparently causes extreme formatting problems (which I don't know about because I'm blind) when sound files are presented in a media section. Some users including Happy melon think that lists of media files should be discouraged, and that sound files should be dispersed throughout an article, saying that Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photo galleries applies to audio and video as well as images. Others disagree with this view, for reasons such as the difficulty of expanding articles about obscure composers, the difficulty of formatting audio with Template:Listen, and tradition. I hope this is a fair summary of the issues. Graham87 13:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO it's often difficult or impossible to disperse sound files throughout an article. (Quite often these files are of poor quality and are included in too many articles, but that's a different problem altogether.) Thanks for the summary! --Kleinzach 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And it's been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Broken formatting due to massive pseudo-automated revisions to Wikipedia. I'm happy with any solution as long as it uses standardised templates which are relatively straightforward for editors. Graham87 15:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Did it close without reaching any resolution? Without reversion of the User:MelonBot errors? It seems so . . . --Kleinzach 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it closed without a resolution. Graham87 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)