Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Einstürzende Neubauten in project scope?

Through the REDIRECT of Template:WikiProject Contemporary music to Template:WikiProject Classical music, the group Einstürzende Neubauten is listed as within the purview of this project. I wonder if this is intended. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. I would go ahead and remove it. "Contemporary Music" has a potential to be a catch-all phrase, but looking at who transcludes it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Contemporary_music&limit=500), it looks like a lot of 20th century Classical Music.DavidRF (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The Creation structure

New concert, new list: after Messiah structure I started The Creation structure (refs to come). Please look for errors, and at the organisation: should perhaps the translation be a different table? Or skipped, because it's in the Main article? I hesitate to assign movement numbers, because they are all different, don't even agree on what is a movement, - which I find rather confusing. On the other hand, I don't like the looks of long bold movement titles too much. Help, please! (btw concert 3 October here, the church which first collapsed) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What are the point of these 'structure' articles anyway? They don't seem to to me like that really belong here. I know Messiah especially has had a lot written on it about its form but even so....it just seem a bit, if you don't mind the term, 'crufty' to get into that level of detail for specific pieces. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain "crufty", English not my language, better in music. I read a table easier than prose, that's why I made it, comparing keys at one glance, for example, or sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRUFT. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Messiah structure was visited more than 2.5k times - not exactly a small fan group, I would say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Way to totally, utterly, and completely miss my point. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear why this content should be separated from our article on the creation. Eusebeus (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think it could be included, fine. The authors of Messiah thought differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the article is in nice prose, the table addresses people around the globe who know Adagio and D major, but not enough English to follow the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Related question: Messiah structure was moved without a discussion to Structure of Handel's Messiah, which is better grammar but complicated and not easy to find, imo. The lead doesn't fit the title. Please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Another question of capitalization

We have an article on Pietro Locatelli's Op. 3 concertos at L'arte del Violino. Within the article, the title is given as L'Arte del Violino, but in the light of Jerome Kohl's comment above that Italian titles always use sentence case, perhaps it should be L'arte del violino. The article includes a reproduction of the title page, which reads L'ARTE DEL VIOLINO, so Mr Locatelli is not much help here. Any ideas as to where the article should be? Incidentally, the article on the work and the article on the composer disagree as to whether the tenth concerto in this set is in F major or F minor. --Deskford (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be lower case; JK is right (btw that's also the way it is listed in the New Grove Locatelli works list). (Opus 3 no. 10 sounds like F major to me). Antandrus (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a guideline on this, see WP:CAPM. --Kleinzach 02:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I've moved the article to the lower case spelling. --Deskford (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

recordings of "complete" sets when there is no WP article

Yesterday I asked a question at Kleinzach's talk page, in reference to Cello Sonatas Nos. 4 and 5 (Beethoven):

... in my edit header [adding Casals] I posed the question Problem: "recordings" lists only complete sets of 5, but appears at Op. 102 page only - where to put? I wonder if you might have a suggestion regarding this - there is no single WP article covering the five cello sonatas together. Surely this same question must come up with other recordings of various "complete" works. (I am not volunteering to start collating this sort of thing myself.)

His suggestion was to post the question here.

(I had also asked his opinion about specific recordings, but he basically pleaded unfamiliarity. I think I do have a general idea about WP's concept of notability, but of course the trick lies in applying that concept.)

Any ideas on the question of multiple-work sets, where there is no page here?

Kleinzach also pointed me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 38#German Requiem discography for a discussion of notability, but where Gerda Arendt also runs across the discrepancy between recording dates and release dates. This problem is one of my own biggest bêtes noires. Personally I always use the recording date when known, as being far more important, but I'm sure many editors simply look at the (P) date and let it go at that. The Arthur Rubinstein discography page in particular drives me crazy -- especially with its absurd list of references, q.v. I have access to a smallish number of these discs, and hope to eventually reorganize the page and plug in whatever dates for specific performances that I do find. Actually, I think the venue is also important; and certainly other personnel always need to be specified. But that will still leave holes for the majority of the entries, unless other people also can find recording dates and other relevant information.
Milkunderwood (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I agree absolutely that discographies should have recording, not publication, dates. (The latter are usually picked up from Amazon and similar sites.) --Kleinzach 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazon is the worst possible place to find accurate dates, for books, DVDs, or music CDs - they usually don't even bother to look for dates, or if so, will grab the first thing they see. I had assumed most dates are coming from the issue (P) dates, which tend to average about a year later than the recording date, for classical. And then you get reissues and re-reissues, like with the complete Rubinstein set. And perhaps half, or more, of classical CDs simply don't list original recording dates. So I think we really need to have two separate columns or some other device for distinguishing these. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the distinction (or absence thereof) between year of 'recording' and of 'publication'. For instance, in a simple discographic Table like the one at the foot of the Vernon Handley page, which would it be preferable to cite in the "Date" [sic] column? Presumably, the best solution would be to have two separate 'date' columns... But that takes a bit more than a cup of instant. --MistyMorn (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointer to Vernon Handley - that table of recordings is much better organized than almost any others that I've seen, including putting the publisher together in the same info column. I agree that using two separate columns for recording and publication dates would be ideal, and would tend to make sloppy editors stop to think. This would be a perfect format for a complete re-do of that notorious Arthur Rubinstein discography page. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to switch the columns on the Arthur Rubinstein discography, the person to talk to is Michael Bednarek. He has a script designed for this. --Kleinzach 01:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this suggestion - I'll leave a note for him. It seems like nearly every discography here, whether separate or integrated with the person's page, follows wildly different formats. It would really be useful for a standardized format (or a few, depending on circumstances) to be at least semi-prescribed. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Before this section gets archived as a dead discussion, I want to return to my original question (which I myself sidetracked onto a BTW issue). Namely, that articles are frequently on specific individual compositions, or some groups thereof, whereas notable recordings to be listed in a discography frequently include a much larger grouping of such compositions. The example I gave had to do with Beethoven's cello sonatas, where the article itself covered only Nos. 4 & 5, but the discography listings included only complete sets of all the sonatas. I still think this issue requires some thought and discussion. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP policy on names: personal vs professional

I have just stumbled upon a long-standing war going on about whether Pablo Casals should be designated Pablo or Pau. I don't really have a dog in that fight, but my inclination is that "Pablo" is the name that will be looked for.

On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge Arthur Rubinstein always recorded as Artur, apparently at the insistence of Sol Hurok, and probably also performed as "Artur" when not recording. I would certainly look for Rubinstein here under his better-known professional name.

Is there any policy that would apply to these situations that seem identical, but are handled in opposite fashion? Milkunderwood (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The separate Arthur Rubinstein discography page strikes me as being particularly anomalous, since there are no Arthur Rubinstein discs in existence. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to formulate a policy, or at least a guideline, if there isn't one already. It seems to me that Casals was generally known as Pablo in his professional capacity, and that is what we should be covering here. Two other cases to keep an eye on are the composers Roberto Gerhard and Thomas Simaku — both articles have been moved to what may be more natural spellings in their native languages, but are not the spellings by which they are generally (i.e. professionally) known. --Deskford (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubinstein has been referred to as Arthur by his record label, BMG (now Sony) since 1999. He also published his two volumes of memoirs under the Arthur name. As for naming conventions, I can only make a non-musical reference: Do we refer to the 39th President as James E. Carter, Jr, or Jimmy Carter?THD3 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rubinstein name question has been discussed/is being discussed here. --Kleinzach 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

RE Pablo vs Pau: I'm pretty sure it should primarily be Pablo, at least in en.wikipedia. As you say, that's how Casals is generally known in the English-speaking world and that's what native English speakers are generally going to be looking for (important considerations, imo). By way of confirmation, when I enter "pau casals" in google.co.uk, many of the top hits are either in other languages (Spanish, French etc), come from Spanish-based sites, or refer to different entities, such as the Orquesta Pau Casals. --MistyMorn (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be only a pedantic side-note, or it may be a major point, but when I replicated your Google search the sites using "Pau" for Casals were not Spanish-language, but Catalan-language pages. This is hardly surprising, since "Pablo" is the Spanish (i.e., Castilian) equivalent of Catalan "Pau". The same is true for "Roberto" vs. "Robert" in Gerhard's name. In the English-speaking world, as already noted, both are known by the Castilian form of their names.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of linguistic nationalism is probably quite relevant here. The editors who moved Roberto Gerhard to "Robert Gerhard" and Thomas Simaku to "Thoma Simaku" seem, judging by their editing history, to be more interested in Catalan and Albanian issues respectively than they are in musical issues. --Deskford (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well taken... all of this. I may be wrong, but I guess that nowadays such variations are more of an internal WP issue, as I think Google at least currently manages to equate search terms such as Pau Casals and Pablo Casals in its algorithm. --MistyMorn (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever Google does in equating different forms of names strikes me as being somewhat irrelevant to en.wikipedia usage, but of course WP does exactly the same thing by use of redirects. Deskford's point that users who keep wanting to change Pablo to Pau are more interested in linguistic nationalism than in music exactly reflects my own impression - look at the ongoing arguments at the discussion tab in the article on Casals. And I keep coming back to the fact that Rubinstein, whatever moniker he used for himself in private, was known to the world as Artur rather than Arthur, with the anomaly that there is no such thing as an Arthur Rubinstein discography, because he never recorded under that name. I strongly feel that Arthur should be redirected to Artur rather than the other way around, as now. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea that Rubinstein only recorded as Artur is Americentric and erroneous. Rubinstein recorded as Arthur from 1928-1937. Also, his HMV recordings (later EMI) were released under the Arthur name.THD3 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

THD3, thank you for this clarification. I yield the point. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We appear to have a relevant guideline at WP:STAGENAME, which says: The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name. This would confirm my feeling that the articles under discussion here should be at Pablo Casals, Roberto Gerhard, Thomas Simaku and (I think) Artur Rubinstein. The lead paragraph of each article could then include a statement about variants of the name and the circumstances under which they are used. --Deskford (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That sums it up well enough. The Oxford Dictionary of Music gives Pablo Casals, Roberto Gerhard, and Arthur (Artur) Rubinstein (no Simaku). What spellings are used in the The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians? --Kleinzach 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't thought of Oxford - I do have a 5th Ed, which as you say lists Rubinstein, Arthur (Artur). So how should that best be handled here? It might seem messy to haul around the parentheses to various references to him, but perhaps not. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(This is an exciting discussion to read, with everyone posting new responses up in the middle of the text.) Milkunderwood (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, and Artur -- both New Grove and Library of Congress prefer these forms of the names for Casals and for Rubinstein. Given that this is en.Wikipedia, I suggest that we follow these authorities. (Oxford also prefers Pablo, but does give Arthur over Artur. I have a copy of Oxford 5th, but it was easy enough to simply call my local library for Grove and LC. Anyone else could easily verify this information themselves. The (American) LC catalog is online. For instance, it lists his autobiography My Young Years and My Many Years [by] Arthur Rubinstein as Rubinstein, Artur, 1887-1982. For Pau Casals it says "See Casals, Pablo, 1876-1973." The New Grove Dictionary will be the same in any country.) In this context also ref Deskford's link to WP:STAGENAME, above. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the VIAF, Kosboot. I had found that earlier, noticing that Artur was given for the U.S., but wasn't aware of its significance. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Have we reached any consensus here on either Casals or Rubinstein? In the case of Casals, User:Infrogmation seems to be continually reverting "Pau" to "Pablo", which I must say I agree with. For Rubinstein, I suggest that Wikipedia follow several authoritative sources noted above, and consistently use the format Arthur (Artur) Rubinstein. Might we be able to reach agreement on this question? Milkunderwood (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If I may add a library point of view, the version of the name that is normally established (for Library of Congress name headings) is the version of the name "most frequently found" in that person's native language or the country where they were mostly resident. So for example, Mozart almost never used the name "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" - but since that's the appellation most frequently used in German, that's the established name. Similarly, Stravinsky is not given in either the Russian or French versions, but in the American version. Is Pablo Casals known mostly as Pau or Pablo? I'd say the latter. -- kosboot (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the LC catalog is online, free for anyone to consult. As is the VIAF that you had previously posted. It seems to me that the basic issue here is determining and applying Wikipedia's policies on forms of names as being authoritative under WP standards. Note that such "authoritative" names are by no means exclusive, since all other name forms will redirect to the preferred one. Application of en:WP guidelines should control. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about VIAF or LC, but their *methodology* used to determine a name. It's really not that different from WP's policy: "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name." Other than close friends, who called Casals "Pau"? I'd think most reference sources call him Pablo. To me, it's a non-issue. -- kosboot (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that Casals ought to be a settled issue, and as you say, a non-issue. (But still the argument there just keeps going on, like the Energizer bunny.) What is not settled is Rubinstein. Are you agreeing that "Arthur (Artur) Rubinstein" should be the preferred form here, then? Milkunderwood (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Rubinstein is harder. I grew up always hearing his name as Artur. It was only in adulthood that someone pointed out that his name was spelled somewhere as Arthur. So I'd go to a few American sources (that excludes New Grove) and see what they say. I see musicsack.com lists him under Artur. -- kosboot (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(s@#% - messed up and lost everything I was typing - trying to reconstruct & trim down here):

• If you want to exclude New Grove, that would also exclude Oxford, which gives Rubinstein, Arthur (Artur). If you need specifically American sources, one of the most "authoritative" sources I can think of other than LC is Schwann [1]. Their Artist publication uses only Artur. LC uses only Artur as their main heading, then putting Arthur as title or author (of his autobiography, or occasionally as recording performer if given that way) - but under the main heading Artur. The decidedly authoritative American Heritage Dictionary [2] gives Rubinstein, Arthur (or Artur). (Different link to AHD, same result: [3].) Personally I like the Oxford solution best - "Arthur (Artur) Rubinstein", which omits only the "or" from AHD's listing - and think it would not be inappropriate for en:wikipedia. Apparently he always signed his name as Arthur. But then there's also the VIAF you posted, giving Artur. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I was under the impression that en:wikipedia is for English language, not specifically American usage. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

recommendations for deletion

There's a lengthy discussion here concerning my proposal for deletion of the article Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526 which may be of some interest. Most of the discussion is just about my frustrations in trying to set up the deletion process, and can be ignored.

Then my most recent post is as follows:

In the meantime, going now to the Hilary Hahn#Discography page and section, I find three additional such linked pages that are all exactly the same situation: nothing more than bare track listings, with no other details or discussion, that had all been set up years ago and never subsequently updated. All the other entries in the Hahn discography are just simple entries without links to individual articles, but these three pages do exist, and similarly ought to be deleted as being both misleading and useless:

• Mendelssohn & Shostakovich Concertos
• Paganini: Violin Concerto No. 1 / Spohr: Violin Concerto No. 8
• Schoenberg: Violin Concerto; Sibelius: Violin Concerto

I admit defeat here. This whole recommend-for-deletion process is extremely complex and time-consuming (unnecessarily so, it seems to me). In any case, so far these other pages have not yet led me astray like the Mozart violin sonatas did, and I'm not going to fool around with them myself. I do very much appreciate all the help I've received, but I'm afraid I just can't deal with the procedures. If anyone else cares to address these other pages, you would be doing innocent interested Wikipedia users a big favor.

I'm not sure if people following this WikiProject Classical music page might otherwise see the Articles for deletion page, and thought it might be helpful to post this notice here. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. While theoretically there's a lot of notable classical albums of standard rep, it seems kind of...wrong...to have articles like this. Not to mention highly undue weight. I myself am a bit too...ineloquent...to really push for articles like this that are problematic. A couple others include Early Symphonies and Symphonies 21-41, which are simply box sets from The Complete Mozart Edition (which itself I find kinda wrong but at least there's SOME justification there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I agree with both Melodia and Milkunderwood - there are certainly a few recordings that may be noteworthy enough to merit a standalone article (and even then ...), but these spinout articles should surely be part of a discography sub-section and redirected forthwith (or simply deleted, since what is one to make of generica like Mendelssohn and Shostakovich Violin Concertos). I suggest that we, as a project, should closely consider the merits of such articles in general as a precedent for action that can be applied across the board. Eusebeus (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Those articles were all created by the same user (User:Maver1ck). My guess is that the editor saw that all the rock/pop CD's in their collection had their own wikipedia articles but not these Hilary Hahn albums, so they made some new pages. Its understandable, but those articles don't really belong on wikipedia. A nicely formatted table on Hilary Hahn's page would contain all the information on all those pages. "Page-worthy" classical albums are rare. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is The Goldberg Variations (Gould album) but there might be a few others.DavidRF (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you were trying to delete these articles, but the process should not be complicated. I believe the way to delete these articles is to PROD them. The way to this is to add the following tag at the top of the article:

{{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}

I suggest that as the concern we write something like "Classical Music project policy decision to delete stub articles on non-notable recordings, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#recommendations for deletion".

To guard against the potentially annoying defence that these articles are actually "notable classical albums of standard rep"—to take Melodia's words above out of context—how about a small tweak... something like: "Classical Music project policy decision to delete arbitrary stub articles on 'random' (and therefore 'non-notable') recordings, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#recommendations for deletion"?--MistyMorn (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

MistyMorn, I understand your point, but my feeling is that arbitrary and random would be interpreted by an editor who feels possessive about their article (and who would not?) as Weasel words, simply opening the door to more argumentation. It seems better to just rely on the text of the policy on notability [sorry, not bothering here to find the link], and stand your ground there. In any case, several long-time editors in classical music have expressed impatience with having any separate articles on individual recordings at all. See for example some comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You're doubtless right and I bow to your experience in these matters (and I didn't much like my usage of 'random' anyway). I suppose I was thinking about the wording outside the specific, technical WP context. One lives and learns... hopefully! Cheers.--MistyMorn (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we had an edit conflict there - I was adding onto what you had seen. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Within seven days of putting this tag, an administrator will stroll by and delete the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing with the sentiments above, I think it would be best to prod these articles and then post a notice here. If the prod is contested then, unfortunately, it has to go to Afd. --Kleinzach 01:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have now prodded Mendelssohn & Shostakovich Concertos, Paganini: Violin Concerto No. 1 / Spohr: Violin Concerto No. 8 and Schoenberg: Violin Concerto; Sibelius: Violin Concerto --Kleinzach 01:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also prodded Early Symphonies and Symphonies 21-41. Centy – reply • contribs – 14:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's doubtless a ton of similar stuff lurking throughout Wikipedia. User:DavidRF has posted this remark, summarizing the whole issue, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526:

Classical recordings are different. You have scores of violinists spending their careers recording large chunks of the violin repertoire (some skewing towards baroque, others not). This happens with each generation of performers. In some cases, the same violinist will record the same piece multiple times. Hilary Hahn has 34 recordings listed at arkivmusic.com and Mozart's K. 301 has 59 recordings listed at the same site. Yes, it was well-received by critics in 2005, what about old recordings by Grumiaux, Perlman, Shaham, Mutter, Szeryng, Accardo, etc, etc etc. And 34 and 59 are relatively modest totals compared to other soloists and other pieces. There's over 200 recordings of the Mendelssohn concerto. Also, its rare that the "albums" are considered works by themselves. Its extremely common for the individual works on classical albums to be collected and repackaged in different ways at a later date. I think the best solution is to have either a List of recordings by Hilary Hahn page or a Hilary Hahn Discography page with a nicely formatted table which could include links to reviews, etc. DavidRF

This also points to the need for inclusion of actual recording dates as opposed to release (P) or (c) dates, or the dates of subsequent reissues and collections such as the volumes of the Complete Mozart Edition that Centy has found. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Um. Looking above, Melodia initially found these two, Centy then prodded them. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Again, before this section goes into archives, I just want to point out that much this same issue is currently under vociferous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RfC "Every album by notable musician gets own article" guideline?#Uninvolved editors, as also noted below in the section on this present page, at "Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)". Milkunderwood (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubinstein discography

Hello all, again – I’ve elsewhere mentioned my dissatisfaction with Wikipedia’s current page on an Arthur Rubinstein discography, and finally decided several days ago to try my hand at constructing what I hope may be an improvement.

First I have to tip my hat to both User:THD3 and User:Etincelles – I had not previously appreciated the enormous amount of work and time that each had put into constructing their version of a table.

I’m not facile with using WP’s various procedures and shortcuts, and I’m an extremely slow one-finger hunt-and-peck typist. It has taken me days, literally, to get as far as I have with my alternate suggestion for a discography table – which is only the beginning of a start. I’m at a point now where I wonder whether this is even worth doing at all. Just a quick glance at ArkivMusic [4] will give an idea of what would be involved - they count 159 titles of sets.

Therefore I invite anyone interested to come “play in my sandbox,” for comments, suggestions, criticisms, or what have you. (Just please don’t make a mess or break it.)

If it’s generally decided that the project is worth pursuing, I most definitely will need as much help as might be forthcoming to move it along. Instead of playing here at Wikipedia I’m supposed to be busy cataloging a large collection of CDs and LPs, of which the 65-odd Rubinstein discs and multi-disc sets I have here are only a small part, and I can’t keep taking all this time off. So far I’ve only managed to enter 18 of these, trying to get a fairly representative sample of different situations – a lot of time was spent on experimenting and figuring out the details of how it might best be set up. I’ll keep on contributing as much as I can make time for, if there’s a consensus to continue it.

Since I’m opening up my sandbox, I suppose it would be just as well for any replies to be posted there rather than here – it would be confusing to have them scattered in two different places.

It seems to me the first issue is that the Arthur Rubinstein discography already exists; and my table can’t be added to or integrated with that one. And my "underconstruction" page is not anywhere near ready to be publicly posted as an article.

As always, I appreciate everyone’s helpful responses that I’ve continually received here. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can get your table to work, I would suggest creating a separate section to the page and adding it there - it would be nice to have list that's sortable by composition/composer. I would be opposed to removing the existing list. Is citing one's own copy of the LP/CD acceptable sourcing? I don't have many of the LPs, but I have the complete CDs.THD3 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your question Is citing one's own copy of the LP/CD acceptable sourcing?, it seems to me that for the purpose of a discography, which is simply a listing of discs with no discussion, no analysis, no expression of opinion, the thing either exists or it does not. And by providing the specifics of what is on the disc, and in particular its publisher and full catalog number, it "sources" itself. But if that might be construed to be insufficient by WP standards, surely a single reference to a verifiable online source such as the appropriate page at ArkivMusic or AllMusic would suffice. If you look at the reference footnote I've put into my trial discography, I've pointed to three different sources for verification of the entire discography - both of these two online websites, plus a printed book. I don't mean to be critical of the hard and extensive work you've done, but it strikes me that referencing each album individually with a long list of identical footnotes is not only overkill, but more important, is distracting clutter that makes the page much longer than it need be. (Did the list of references get reorganized fairly recently? I'm not seeing any edits, but when I first looked at it, it seemed they were all in a single long column, whereas now they're displaying side-by-side.)

A separate issue, it seems to me, is that the format of the table as originally set up by Etincelles, while well-meaning, is not very useful, and also gives a distinct impression of clutter. The leftmost column, in a sortable table, contains virtually nothing but 1999 all the way down until you get to the very few listed items not included in the RCA Rubinstein Collection.

On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that the table I'm attempting to assemble is also "clutter" in its profuse detail. I don't know. To me, the recording date (and the venue, which definitely affects the sound) is of considerably more consequence than the publisher's release date. As you say, Rubinstein recorded many pieces three or more times, and the significance lies in how he approached the interpretation at different points in his career, as well as differences in his technique (and in his physical facility, as he got older). But release date is inconsequential except for identification. After all, as I've mentioned, we are trying to provide a discography of Rubinstein, not of RCA or other issuers of his recordings. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that users are unable to look for the contents of a particular release using your table, and many will want that option, especially as older recordings are often rearranged. I would also add, on a personal note, that ditching a table that other editors have worked so hard to compile would be a disincentive to participation. Best to keep both, one listed as "Recordings sorted by album" and the other as "Recordings sorted by composition."THD3 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That would sound OK to me, but I suspect it might be preferable to put them on two separate pages somehow, simply because yours is already very large, and mine would be truly humongous. Actually, it's easy enough to just sort mine by the Release column, and there you have it. Have you tried doing that? It returns everything on any disc, although not in track sequence. Play around with it a little bit and see what you think. In the meantime, if you haven't looked at it in the past hour or so, I decided to move the table itself up above the protocol notes I had made, and put them down below.

But in any case, so far I'm not hearing any enthusiasm for the layout that I have, and there's no way I can get it done by myself without help; so I might just abandon the project instead. It can stay there in my sandbox if anyone wants to fool around with it. I haven't given up yet, and with any encouragement at all I'll keep pecking away at it in the meantime. I do certainly understand how much labor you and Etincelles spent on the present one. The basic problem is that I'm trying to do too much - especially with finding all the appropriate links. If it weren't for that chore, it could go a lot quicker.

(I'm assuming that so far, all three of the right double angle quotes are displaying OK on everyone's computers? I'm used to using Alt codes rather than HTML. Given the choice I would just use the [Alt]175 if it works universally. I'm using XP.) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution to the issue of '1999' (etc) is that, and it should be the general rule, the recording dates be listed rather than the releases which are very often released in various configurations that don't mean all that much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Re my question, above, "(Did the list of references get reorganized fairly recently? I'm not seeing any edits, but when I first looked at it, it seemed they were all in a single long column, whereas now they're displaying side-by-side.)":

The display of references depends on the computer you're using! On one, I see them in a single long column, on a different machine they're arranged into two side-by-side columns. This reminds me of a question I had posted in my sandbox:

A special symbol to indicate recitals of miscellaneous selections, and to force these to sort at the bottom of the table, is shown here in Alt+numpad code and in HTML code:

• » = [Alt]+175 - (right double angle quotes, for "»Recital:"
  
• » = [Alt]+0187 - (the same right double angle quotes)
  
• » = HTML 187 - (the same right double angle quotes)
  
  • do all three symbols display properly as described, on all computers, or is one or another encoding required?) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• As of today I appear to have some agreement on the pros and cons of differing layouts of a sortable discography, and an objection from one of the major contributors to the currently posted discography article; but no further comments have been posted recently. I'm still wondering whether there's any general interest in a discography of Rubinstein's recordings (and whether anyone has yet looked at my proposed rearrangement). I will leave what I have now in my sandbox, and might even take the time to continue working on it; but if there's no interest it does seem rather pointless. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please have your say in Music Notability RfC affecting classical music

If anyone might have an opinion or thought to share regarding the helter-skelter creation of separate articles on individual albums of classical music - such as the Hahn recording of four Mozart sonatas that went through AfD, and three similar others of hers that were simply PRODded - right now is the time to do it, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RfC "Every album by notable musician gets own article" guideline?#Uninvolved editors. So far the discussion is heavily weighted by pop fans who strenuously argue that every album should get its own article. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to your invitation by arguing the need to break the mold. Though I'm not sure whether or not it was a good idea to introduce my exposition with Expand... It rather invites criticisms of wanting to bloat the guidelines. But it seems to me that some sort of a distinction has to be made. You can't just stick a single descriptor ('album') on every genre (pace the ubiquitous Universal Infobox brigade!).--MistyMorn (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've now tried to clarify my position by associating myself with your proposal and arguing that the issue must be addressed separately.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if some more classical music people could, in one way or another, make their voices heard here in the RfC.--MistyMorn (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

It almost appears that I may be monopolizing this Discussion page for Classical music - I very much hope I'm not being offputting with all the questions and issues I've been raising here recently. (And I apologize for my error in posting the Chopin: capitalization in names of works section.)

Here I want to bring to the attention of anyone who might be interested, a currently ongoing discussion about Notability (music), concerning the guidelines as to whether and to what extent Wikipedia may be an appropriate place to have separate articles on individual albums.

We have just had our own similar discussion here in the #recommendations for deletion section above, and I refer you in particular to the quote from User:DavidRF that Classical recordings are different...

It appears that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) is so far concerned only with popular music. Indeed a quick "find" search for the term classical yields zero instances on either the Project page or the Discussion page. But as DavidRF has pointed out, the applicable criteria for notability pertaining to popular and to classical music are entirely different. So the question becomes whether a distinction needs to be made in the general guideline for the notability of "music," now undifferentiated. There is of course no bright line separating the two forms - Brian Eno and Ravi Shankar as possible examples, for instance. But I wonder whether editors with an enthusiasm for performers such as Hilary Hahn, and creating articles that are nothing more than bare track listings on albums of miscellaneous performances such as have been recently deleted, may have been relying on that guideline, which states

In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Surely this guideline as stated cannot apply to classical recordings, for the reasons that DavidRF has spelled out. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm copying my following post over from a discussion on this topic with User talk:Michael Bednarek:

"Here's the way I would classify it, always assuming "notability" in each category:

• classical music:
  • composer: article
  • composition: possibly an article if unique or distinctive; more frequently just a listing or separate discography under composer
  • performer: article
  • performance/recording: almost always only a listing or separate discography under composer, performer, and composition
• pop music:
  • performer/composer: article
  • performance/recording: possibly an article; otherwise a listing or separate discography
  • composition: almost always incorporated together with recording
  • composer: article if other than performer"

Milkunderwood (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start. For classical, I wouldn't say "discography under composer", as compositions aren't usually associated with "discs". I would phrase that as "entry in a composer's list of works". Though to quibble, compositions often do have their own articles. For example, each symphony by Beethoven has its own article. But if a work is less popular or renowned then it could be article on a set of works or just an entry in the list of works.

Also, for classical performance/recording "only a listing" actually overstates our coverage. I would guess that the vast majority of classical recordings aren't on wikipedia at all. If an editor for a performer or composition is particular interested, then recordings would be listed there and no one would object but recordings aren't required to be listed or anything. But they almost never have articles. I would list The Goldberg Variations (Gould album) as the "exception that proves the rule" that recordings shouldn't have articles. I'm struggling to think of any other recordings that are that notable. (Maybe Caruso 1906?). My two cents.DavidRF (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

David, of course you're right that most recordings aren't mentioned anywhere at all in Wikipedia - I was just addressing those deemed sufficiently "notable" (mostly in the eye of the beholder) that someone decides to "fix" the omission. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RE the 'composition' criteria suggested above:

When notable compositions (or sets of compositions) don't have their own article, I think this is often simply because nobody has yet got around to doing it. An example which I've found thought provoking is Percy Grainger, who currently seems to have just three specific 'composition' articles - ie Lincolnshire Posy, Molly on the Shore and Country Gardens - even though he composed a host of distinctive miniatures, either singly or in sets. I'm not sure quite how one would define "unique or distinctive", but I now think that - like many other Grainger miniatures - his rag In Dahomey (Cakewalk Smasher) deserves a separate article. I suppose my general feeling is that the bar shouldn't be set too high for articles on compositions, even for miniatures or lesser known works that can be seen to meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. Just my two cents.--MistyMorn (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on these. The bar generally ought to be set fairly low, I think, for compositions, and Grainger seems to fit my own off-the-top-of-my-head phrasing "unique or distinctive" pretty well. Basically I was just following the suggestion that not every sonata ever written needs its own article. Unless I'm misinterpreting their posts in various places, User:Michael Bednarek prefers to have more articles on compositions, while User:DavidRF, as I understand him, sometimes wonders how useful they may be.

My own concern is more with recordings than with compositions, and I'm definitely with DavidRF on thinking that separate articles on these should be extremely rare. I'm agnostic on the question of lists of recordings of compositions. User:Kleinzach has suggested that more recordings may be better than fewer in a composition's or performer's discography. (Again, I hope I'm not putting words in other editors' mouths - apologies if I'm misstating your views.) The whole question of "notability" of individual performances/recordings for classical music is a real can of worms - whether lists or discographies should be limited, or exhaustive; even whether they should be called "selected recordings" or "notable recordings" or just plain "recordings" (which I think is misleading).

And then the question comes back to the original subject of this Section, which is the music guideline encouraging separate articles on recordings, without distinguishing between pop music and classical music. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with articles for compositions. I've created many of them. There are times when I don't mind if its a "set" of works that has the article String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn), Songs Without Words or Lyric Pieces but on the other hand I'm also an active editor of the 106 articles for the individual Haydn Symphonies. Whatever works. If a particular "set" article grows large, it can be split its individual compositions at a later date.

Also, I'm not a particular fan of articles for recordings, but I'm not really in a hurry to delete them if other editors worked hard on them and are happy with them. (The issue with the Hilary Hahn articles from last month was that articles were particular stubby and the article titles were ambiguous as to whether the article was for the composition or the recording.) That said, I'd much rather we spend time fleshing out articles for compositions than adding new articles for the hundreds of recordings each for dozens of legendary soloists. Do we need 100 articles for Great Pianists of the 20th Century?DavidRF (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe we should leave other sites to do track listings. And I think the broad classical/pop distinction is important. It seems to me that in the pop world an album often is the equivalent of a 'composition', with groups tending to publish their recordings before taking them on tour. In our field it's almost always the other way round, even in contemporary music. I too have tried to think of records which might warrant separate articles. I considered the case of Beecham's Messiah recording, where the authorship of the orchestral arrangement has been disputed. But that dispute presumably also regards the concert performances. It's just that we're (literally) left with the record. So I'm not altogether sure there.--MistyMorn (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I had posted the following at that !vote discussion, which might be pertinent here:

"The essential difference is that most albums of the various genres of popular music are original works, performed by whoever wrote the song and devised its setting, or otherwise are original in the sense of providing a new interpretation and setting -- but on the other hand virtually all "classical" (aka DWM [5]) music recordings are "interpretations" only in the sense of keeping as close to the original written score as possible while demonstrating the most technical facility possible. So there might be literally hundreds of recordings of a given composition. We've already seen this in action, where a charismatic violinist puts out a disc of what's really a miscellany of classical sonatas, and a fan creates an article for the disc, putting nothing but the track listings. The problem is that as written, the guideline is for any and all music, undifferentiated, in general, including classical music where it's entirely inappropriate."

Milkunderwood (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with the relevance of officially making the distinction, but at the same time feel that we shouldn't altogether rule out the possibility of having separate articles for classical records when there is a particular justification, such as with 'Gould's Brandenburgs' or perhaps 'Beecham's Messiah'. And, of course, some contemporary crossover artists, such as Uri Caine (or Brian Eno), could prompt us to bend some rules. So I reckon we'd do well to leave a bit of wiggle room for special cases. I guess that's my full 2c for now on the question.--MistyMorn (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - I've already pointed out, above, that there is no bright line, for the reasons you give. I can't imagine how to reword the guideline covering music generally to clarify the distinction, but as it stands now, it just invites an awful lot of trouble in classical music. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still silly, though, to have, say, David Bowie Narrates Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf just because it's David Bowie, but yet many other famous people narrated it as well. There doesn't even seem to be a link to it in Peter and the Wolf either. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Melodia, if you might have any interest in Peter and the Wolf, you really ought to check out the first and still by far the best recording ever made of it - it will make your hair stand up on end. This is the Koussevitzky 1939 recording with the narration done by Richard Hale, noted in the discussion under Peter and the Wolf#Recordings before the listings begin. This is still available on Pearl GEMM CD 9487, [6] ASIN: B000000WW4. Everyone else I've ever heard is just humdrum and boring in comparison. Unfortunately Amazon doesn't offer a sampler of that track, but Koussevitzky had an instinctive feel for Prokofiev, and everything on that disc is well worth having. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

---

These types of articles generally just consist of an image of an album cover in an info box, a couple of quotes from different reviews, and a track listing. I think I have created about three:

• Frederica von Stade – Mahler Songs
• Great Pianists of the 20th Century – Alfred Brendel III
• Alfred Brendel – Unpublished Live and Radio Performances 1968–2001

The Brendel recordings are linked from Alfred Brendel discography and do simplify the task of adding them to the table. I don't believe the recordings on the Von Stade LP have been reissued. I'm sure this information can be probably pulled together from elsewhere on the web, but that has never really been a criterion for deleting articles, otherwise there wouldn't be much left of the Wikipedia. They are quite a bit of work to put together, so I guess I probably wouldn't be really happy to see them deleted, but that is also one reason I haven't written very many of them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I didn't want to post this over in the other argumentative discussion, but it appears that you may be an admirer of Alfred Brendel. This is a matter of taste. Personally I hear Brendel as having wooden fingers, and much worse, as having no sense of musicality, nor any understanding of what Schubert or Beethoven, for instance, ought to sound like. Yes, I have read Musical Thoughts and Afterthoughts, and his Collected Essays - both cover to cover. He's an interesting and perceptive writer. But I detest most of his recordings, although he did go through a middle period when he sounded somewhat sympathetic to what he was playing. There's any number of pianists, violinists, or chamber groups that I might be tempted to write little articles about some especially fine CDs they've released. Reviews here and there are easy enough to find. But I have no intention of doing that. Wikipedia is simply not an appropriate venue for this kind of thing. I must say I can't imagine why you might have written and posted an article on an out-of-print and unavailable LP of miscellaneous Mahler sung by von Stade - if anything is undeserving of having its own separate article, it's a miscellany. DavidRF is absolutely right. Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations is worthy of having an article, not just because it's "good", but because its repercussions have significance and importance beyond just being Bach and being played by an interesting pianist. As I said earlier, below, I don't think your three articles listed here are worth bothering with taking through AfD - but they should never have been posted to start with. The appropriate place for this kind of thing - bringing attention to specific discs - is in discographies, whether of the composer, the performer, or the composition. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that I added the articles on the Brendel boxed sets because they had his recordings of Busoni's Toccata and some of the Elegies, and although I'm not particularly a fan of Brendel, he was definitely one of the better pianists to record these pieces. (This was a while ago I think. I had been working on a discography for Busoni at the time. I was going to add his [Brendel's] performance to that discography, which I see now I neglected to do.) In any case, for completeness I thought I should include everything that Brendel recorded in those albums, but decided it made more sense to put this information in separate standalone articles rather than in the Busoni discography. The two articles that resulted turned out it to fit nicely with the Brendel discography. I also thought it was nice that the album covers could be added without dispute under free use criteria to an article on an album. I read over the criteria for album articles and included the required sources for 'notability'. It did not occur to me that 'classical' music would ultimately decide these criteria do not apply, and that the articles should be deleted. I still think the articles can contribute in a positive way to discographies (both Brendel and Busoni, and perhaps other discographies for composers or works included on those albums), since the complete album description can be linked from a fairly simple item in each discography. So I feel these articles are a positive addition to the Wikipedia, and it would be a negative rather than a positive to delete them.

The Frederica von Stade LP I added mainly because I liked the cover artwork and wanted to add it to her biography (although I do enjoy her performances of the music as well). It turns out that adding the pic to two different articles is apparently not a good idea under fair use criteria, and the picture, after a rather long period of time, was deleted from her bio by another editor. (If the album article is deleted, the cover art will have to go as well.) I wasn't so keen on adding and formatting all the track details, but did it, because it seemed to be fairly standard in album articles. In fact, I think probably it was because I overdosed on doing this kind of detailed formatting work on the track listings, that I more or less decided to stop working so much on discographies and went on to other kinds of material. I'm glad I created these articles (at least if they are allowed to stand), but I doubt I will do any more. They definitely do not seem to be worth all the work that went into them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time for this response, and I can understand your point. I've never tried posting a picture, and hadn't been aware of the rules. Although I had visited Wikipedia many times strictly as a user, the first time I ever posted was at Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood, where I found a link to a YouTube clip that turned out to be just some guy reading the beginning of the play in a godawful monotone. I deleted this link and instead linked to a different YouTube clip of Richard Burton reading. The next thing I knew, some bot had come along deleting mine, saying that YouTube wasn't appropriate here. So I know how you feel. (Also, as I've mentioned a couple of paragraphs below this one, about the blood, toil, tears, and sweat involved in trying to compile a useful discography.) It doesn't look as though anyone here is interested in taking down your articles. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to Ferruccio Busoni discography (as composer). I created this fairly early on in my Wikipedia career. I might not do it the same, if I had to do it again, but I don't really want to try to change it now. It's too much work! In any case, adding the Brendel recordings presented me with a real problem when it came to fitting it into the format I had created in the Busoni discography, and creating the standalone articles helped to solve the problem of adding the reviews and other track information in what were essentially compilation albums. And to reiterate, I think these album articles can be useful for adding some of these recordings to other discographies. In any case, the Busoni discography was getting pretty long, and this seemed like a way to move all the less relevant information (which it seemed to me the reader of the discography might like to know about) into another article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert, again, I prefer to respond to you here in discussing specifics of classical music rather than over in the ongoing argument that is primarily concerned with popular music. My most recent post there was merely a brief generality, in agreement with Ravpapa. I'm very sorry that you've taken umbrage, or seen my opinions as a personal attack.

I've already said that I have no intention of attempting an AfD for any of the three articles you've mentioned. But specifically, yes, Beethoven's Diabelli Variations and the Piano Sonata No. 28 are indeed "classical miscellanea" when combined together in one CD issue with other odds and ends of Chopin, Mendelssohn and Busoni. It's simply their combination together that makes them "miscellaneous" - this is in no way a criticism of the specific works.

Concerning Brendel, my point was not at all that I don't like his playing, but rather that I had seen your choices for writing separate articles as somehow singling out Brendel for two out of the three, on the basis of your personal taste and liking of his playing. You've explained that that was not your motivation, and I've taken you at your word. Neither my personal taste in pianists, nor yours, is a valid criterion for determining notability. If you feel that Bryce Morrison's opinion that "here is Brendel at his greatest" is sufficiently significant, then the obvious place for noting this in Wikipedia is in a discography of Brendel's recordings, where there will, or should, be many other such encomiums. Brendel continues to rack up rave reviews, and my attitude is, more power to him. My personal opinion of his playing has no place in Wikipedia.

The crux of the argument is whether one wording or another in the general music guideline, either treating classical and popular music together without distinction, or creating in effect two different categories of music, either should be, or should appear to be, more restrictive in defining "notability", or less so. You take the position that a more restrictive wording (for classical music) will be "applied inconsistently and with a great deal of contention". To the contrary, I feel that either deleting the second sentence, or clearly distinguishing classical music, will bring much more clarity in application of the final guideline, and leave less room for contentious inconsistency. As it presently stands, the guideline is extremely ambiguous. My guess is that a clearer guideline for classical music would be "contentious" only in the eyes of fans of specific performers or composers, who would chafe at the restriction against posting new articles on what they feel are important and notable CD issues, as opposed to listing and annotating them in discographies where they belong. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had meant that classification to be only a very general guideline, with room for exceptions one way or the other. It's slightly out of context here; originally it was in response to what I saw as Michael comparing apples to oranges, where he was concerned about "raising the bar for minor works of major composers" (in a discussion pertaining to popular music exclusively up to that point), comparing an Rfd for the article on John Adams' composition Hallelujah Junction with for instance "vanity discographies of Hilary Hahn"; and I was distinguishing between articles on separate recordings as opposed to discographies with multiple recordings.

I dashed my proposed classification off in a hurry, and had not meant to include "composer" as an appropriate place for having a discography - now struck out here. I'm pretty much in full agreement with DavidRF's formulation. I certainly wouldn't RfD any of the three articles Robert.Allen has posted, but on the other hand neither would I have posted them - I think these are borderline cases, probably not deserving individual articles, but including enough analysis and discussion to make them slip by. The better way to have handled these would have been to discuss them under Brendel and von Stade, I think.

The real issue, though, is that guideline on Notability (music), that seems to me completely inapplicable to nearly all forms of "Classical" music. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A side note to Robert.Allen, concerning "quite a bit of work to put together" - take a look at my sandbox, discussed in the "Arthur Rubinstein discography" section immediately preceding this one. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus, but what does it matter?

Milkunderwood and myself have been arguing vigorously at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) for a rider on the existing guideline which will limit the creation of random articles on classical music recordings. Alas, due to the continued dissension of at least two editors, it is becoming clear that there will be no consensus for a guideline that reflects the actual practice of this project.

But I ask myself, does this really matter? As a matter of fact, all the articles that were prodded for deletion (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 40#recommendations for deletion) have in fact been deleted, and the one article that went to deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526) was also deleted. So the unwritten policy regarding recordings is upheld.

Of course it would be a lot simpler if we could reach agreement on a guideline, and save ourselves the work of hunting up these articles and prodding them, but it seems that that is not to be. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It matters in that written policy should reflect practice. And also that practice should reflect principles enunciated in written policy. I believe that current practice reflects WP:GNG, in that most classical recordings to not garner enough significant coverage to show notability. And so, it would be helpful to have a paragraph in WP:NMUSIC to explain the actual policy about this issue.

Also, opposition by a vocal minority does not mean that consensus does not exist. Consensus in Wikipedia reflects a 'Rough Consensus' not seeking unanimity, but a decision that has taken into account all reasonable arguments from all sides.

I'm not saying that the issue should be pushed at NMUSIC, rather, I'm just enunciating the principles involved. rgds, LK (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence is obviously right about WP practice and policy. Concerning a paragraph in WP:NMUSIC, over the past month I think the principles involved in differentiating classical music have been pretty thoroughly hashed out and articulated, and it shouldn't be that hard to distill them into something useful. But of course getting such a paragraph actually inserted is exactly where we've come up against a brick wall, with every "push" drowned out by editors who have no interest in classical music. This is why I had thought it might be useful to segregate classical, as opposed to other genres. In any event, I'm a stranger here, myself, and I have no idea how this issue proceeds to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. It's back to my real work for me. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this, however one option is always to create a guideline here at project level (see our project guidelines) (and then possibly argue for its wider adoption later). --Kleinzach 07:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual, Kleinzach has come up with the best idea. I have written a suggested guideline here, and invite you all to comment on it. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How should we call complimenting articles to major works of music?

When Messiah (Handel) was made a FA, the authors didn't have much room for the sources, the structure and the music. Therefore 4 new articles came into being, Messiah structure and Messiah Part I to III, the volume of music given. I chose the names (and discussed them here) in analogy to discographies: start with the name of the piece, add what is special. Now this has been questioned and moved, and I understand that the term "structure" is ambiguous. Anything else? "musical structure"? "composition"? You name it! - Next problem is The Creation structure, that could be solved by moving it to Die Schöpfung (Haydn), if there are no objections. But more to come, complaints were raised that the movements of the St Matthew Passion are overloading the article, and they are just a sequence of their titles at present, no word yet about music. Suggestions welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Die Schöpfung (Haydn) just sounds like a translation of The Creation (Haydn) so I wouldn't move the structure article there. There's already a lot of "structure" in The Creation (Haydn) so it might make sense to do some merging (maybe not a whole merge, but moving some of the play-by-play out of the original article and into the structure article? I would chat with User:Opus33 because of most of the original article was built by him/her.

As for what to call the forked off "structure" article. That's a nice problem to have! Usually, we're struggling to build articles up from the stub level. With these oratorios we seem to have the opposite problem. I agree structure isn't perfect. That's usually what we call the section of the article, but it looks weird in the article title.DavidRF (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I think the two Creation articles are already kind of merged, because - as you may have seen - every beginning of a movement in "structure" links to the prose writing in "main" (using different numbering which unfortunately can't be helped, but the reader doesn't see that.) As said elsewhere, I like to look at a table first and have some difficulties with English prose, others may feel the same. I personally don't know two terms in the prose of "main": "Plum aria", "prized aria". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Plum" and "prized" are just variants of "famous" or "renown" or "featured"... something good. They don't mean anything specific when attached to "aria". The original writer just didn't want to use the same adjectives over and over to describe all the big numbers.

I can see the links between the two sections but that's not really "merged". An interested reader would want to have both articles open at the same time and be following the two sections in sequence. Merging a table with prose is very difficult though. Some have had success with a "Notes" column in the table, but that column often doesn't format very well. Anyone else have any suggestions?DavidRF (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To the links: you can link, read, and return within one window, or you can have two open. I don't see a major difference between this information being in two articles, - or as in one, as for example in Messiah Part I, where I wrote both, table and single movements. The movements of "The Creation" are described well, no need to do that a second time. Additions to single movements should be made there, if you ask me, additions to the structure - overview - or however we name it, in the other, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither "plum" nor "prized" are really encyclopedic in tone; like "renowned" they are journalese, and grating, certainly to English ears (as opposed to US). "Famous" is ok if it is, or for arias "frequently recorded/excerpted/performed". I've made my views on "structure" titles on talk at Messiah structure. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WP policy on juvenile ugliness posted on Talk pages?

Going to Talk:Partita for Violin No. 2 (Bach) to post a question, I find the section Big meta-discussion, which dates from 2006. Should this still be retained, or removed, at least in part? (Personally I don't want anything to do with editing it.) Milkunderwood (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia as a rule is fairly tolerant, but if a discussion has next to nothing to do with improving the article, it can go. I just removed it. WP:FORUM may apply. If anyone sees any value in retaining it, feel free to put it back. Antandrus (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Midi files

Hi, I have reverted the addition of a midi electronic file at Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)‎. I know we have discussed the merits of such sound files before, but perhaps we could consider the question briefly again. I think these are poor alternatives to the real thing, usually available for free from youtube. Thoughts? Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is my thought: Midis are not a "poor alternative to the real thing"; they are no alternative at all. Except in very rare cases - for example, you want to show that a theme from a symphony is a quote from a theme in another work - midis should not be used.

But, as long as I am here, I have another matter I would like to point out to the gang: YouTube now has an option to mark videos as Creative Commons 3.0 Share-alike, which makes them kosher for use on the Wikipedia. I have written to two posters of quartets asking them to change the licensing of their videos. I then stripped the audio, and used it to illustrate different things in the article (see Death and the Maiden Quartet and American String Quartet). This is an excellent source of free music for illustrating points in articles. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes a quick note to say I'm impressed by your work (on Death and the Maiden Quartet). Really helpful. --Kleinzach 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that MIDI files are always unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have many MIDI files which were recorded from the performances of human piano players, some in international competitions. But even for completely computer-generated MIDI files, examples can be found where the MIDI creator has taken great care to create a good approximation of the work, and I believe that this is the case here with "Ruhevoll" from Mahler's 4th. It would be different if we had a satisfactory recording of an orchestra, but I don't see one on Wikipedia. Until then, this MIDI version is better than nothing.

The uploader made some very thoughtful remarks at Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Mahler)#MIDI. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just listened to "Ruhevoll". Certainly better than most MIDI files, but perhaps that is also potentially a problem, in that it is more likely to mistaken by the reader-listener for the real thing. On balance I think the article is better without the file. --Kleinzach 02:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ragtime composers?

Should Claude Debussy and Igor Stravinsky be included in Category:Ragtime composers and List of ragtime composers? Stravinsky has been in both for some time, and Debussy is currently subject to dispute. Personally I would feel that the fact that each wrote a few pieces influenced by ragtime doesn't qualify them as ragtime composers, but I don't want to start reverting before checking the opinions of other editors. --Deskford (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Debussy wrote a total of two, and I believe Stravinsky the same. They aren't ragtime composers any more than, say, Sibelius was an opera composer or Grieg was a symphony composer. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Same for Shostakovich's two Jazz Suites and Tahiti Trot. Or Beethoven - some pianists, probably most notably Rudolf Serkin, bring a distinctly boogie-woogie sound to certain sections of the Op. 111 Arietta. But none of these would really qualify as ragtime under a strict definition. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(Parenthetically, I note that someone has marked the Chailly/Concertgebouw version [7] of Suite for Jazz Orchestra No. 1 (Shostakovich) as being a "Notable Recording", and it is, especially for including all three of these pieces as well as the Piano Concerto No. 1. But Chailly's approach is relatively cold and "classical", whereas Rozhdestvensky [8] gets down and dirty with it, the way it was meant to be played.) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that in the second reversion of my removal of this category from the Debussy article the editorial comment claims that a cakewalk is a type of ragtime, though this is contradicted by the article Ragtime, which states that the cakewalk is a "predecessor" of ragtime. The article on Debussy presently states that the Children's Corner Suite "recalls classicism … as well as a new wave of American ragtime music", which is a very long way from saying that Debussy was a composer of ragtime. What next? Debussy as composer of Javanese gamelan music, on the strength of Pagodes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well he's right basically, a cakewalk is close enough to a rag in spirit, to fall under the general umbrella of 'ragtime' along with a ragtime waltz and a couple other things. But writing one piece in a certain style, as a tribute, doesn't mean one should categorize someone as a composer of such a style up front. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether a cakewalk does or does not fall under the heading of ragtime, it seems to me that the article Ragtime needs to be changed, or at least a claim to the effect that Debussy actually composed ragtime (as opposed to "reflecting" it) before making such an assertion in an edit summary. But the main issue, as you say, is that writing one piece as a style imitation does not make one a composer in that style. Stravinsky is mentioned above, as well. Is he also to be categorized as a jazz composer because of the Ebony Concerto and the Preludium, or as a polka composer because of the Circus Polka, or a Tango composer because of, well, the Tango (1940), or (God forbid) as a Norwegian composer because of Four Norwegian Moods?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you look in the Ragtime article, the very first item listed under 'styles' is a cakewalk. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In the same spirit, I think we ought to list Beethoven as a boogie-woogie composer, and see how that flies. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion - and many other discussions about categories in which I have participated - misses an essential point: The purpose of a category is not to make a factual statement about the subject of the article, but to help people looking for information which is spread across a number of articles. Consider, for example, the plight of a researcher looking for classical composers who composed in popular idioms. Where would such a researcher look? Certainly I would start by looking in Wikipedia categories, and if I found Stravinsky or Debussy in a list of Ragtime composers, I would hit pay dirt.

So the question we should be asking ourselves is not "was Stravinsky a ragtime composer?", but "Would including Stravinsky in the category help or hinder a reader looking for information about ragtime composers?" I am strongly of the opinion that inclusion could not hinder such a reader, and might help. So I say, don't delete the category. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There might be a point to that, but on the flip side if one added categories for every thing a composer might have composed, it would get unbearable. Imagine if for Debussy one added that he was a 'String Quartet', 'Piano Trio', 'Prelude', 'Cantata', 'Melodie', 'Fantasia'(or 'Fantasie' or 'Fantasy'...whatever), 'Sight Reading Piece'...etc....'composer'. And Debussy is one of the smaller ones. Just imagine Mozart. See the problem? But more so, there's a huge fundimental difference between Debussy and composers like Joplin, Blake, Lamb, etc. The later? They wrote in ragtime style for a large part or their works. In a sense, they are reagtime composers in the same way Debussy was an impressionist composer. Obviously some composers might have more than one style (Stravinsky for instance, going to him), but there's a clear difference between someone who wrote in a FORM for a couple pieces versus someone who wrote in a general STYLE. Understand? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are right, and you have exposed a fundamental and fatal flaw in the whole system of categorization. The solution to this - the ultimate solution - is semantic web. In the semantic web, human-made categories become unnecessary. The researcher would ask, "show me a list of classical composers who wrote ragtime style" and the computer would "read" the articles and find them. This technology is still in its diapers, but a Wikipedia team is working on it. As a start, they are using infoboxes as a source of structured information that they can use for a very limited set of such searches. Which is why I support the use of infoboxes in our articles. I know this is a minority view, and one despised by most on this project, so I keep my mouth shut when the subject comes up.

But that is neither here nor there for this discussion. What is relevant is this: you are right that there is a huge difference between Joplin's and Debussy's oeuvres; the question is only one of whether adding Debussy to the category might help someone or not. If someone wants to read a bit about ragtime composers, and gets to the article about Debussy, no harm is done, and maybe some good. And a category of "quartet composers" would be a pretty entirely useless category. Even Wagner wrote a string quartet (though Liszt and Chopin did not - they are about the only ones).--Ravpapa (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think in this case a compromise might be to add Debussy and Stravinsky (and others like Robert Russell Bennett) into the list article, but not categorize them as such. And incidentally, Liszt DID arrange two of his own works for string quartet. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am astounded. Thank you! I can't find the parts, only the score. I will keep looking. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I asked the question then disappeared for 10 days. I think I'm still with Jerome Kohl and Melodia on this one. Debussy and Stravinsky (and Satie and Poulenc and Dave Brubeck and Tom Lehrer and many others) wrote a few pieces influenced by ragtime, but I don't think that's enough to call them "ragtime composers". I'm interested in Ravpapa's point about categories being there to help readers find what they are looking for, but we could all too easily end up with so many categories that it all becomes unmanageable. I think I would be happy with the compromise of including Debussy and Stravinsky in the list, where there could be a comment stating the extent of their involvement with the genre, but not including them in the category. --Deskford (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ex aequo

I’m interested in the use of the term ex aequo (short for ex aequo et bono) in the context of classical music competitions. I’d never come across it until I read various WP articles such as International Jean Sibelius Violin Competition, International Chopin Piano Competition, Maria Canals International Music Competition, José Iturbi International Piano Competition et al.

It seems to be a technical way of saying there was a tie, or that two performers shared a prize. That’s a very simple concept to understand, and it demands correspondingly simple language, imo.

Where there’s a tie in the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, we call a spade a spade and say there was a "tie". Where two people share first prize in the International Tchaikovsky Competition, we say exactly that, they "shared first prize".

So, why is it that in other articles we’re sticking to a term that is hardly in common usage, and most people would have to look up before knowing what it means? If that term is what the jurors actually used, surely we don't have to stick to that, and surely we can come up with a more accessible way of explaining these results to our beloved readers. No? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's the term actually used by the jurors, then WP should follow that (with an explanation.) But if not, certainly the term shouldn't be here. As to why the jurors might give their results in Latin, this is classical music, after all, not football. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

And, I might add, you are displaying a profound misconception when you refer to our readers as "beloved". Remember, the reader is the enemy. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Just forget I said anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Compositions by Czech composers

Category:Compositions by Czech composers, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:Works by Czech people. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Marc Blitzstein's categories

The categorisation of Marc Blitzstein's works seems to be a little odd.

Normally, musical works belong in Category:Compositions by …, which could have sub-cats like Category:Operas by … etc.

But here, the main cat is Category:Works by Marc Blitzstein, with Category:Compositions by Marc Blitzstein as a sub-category, along with Category:Operas by Marc Blitzstein and Category:Songs with lyrics by Marc Blitzstein. Can a kind soul take a close look a this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Notre Dame school

Does anyone have the interest and knowledge to replace the recording at Notre Dame school? It's monophonic; it should be polyphonic. Please see the talk page there. Yopienso (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: 32 Beethoven piano sonatas

There is a request to move Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas to new titles at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Indian classical music nominated for deletion

Portal:Indian classical music has been nominated for deletion, please see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian classical music. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually this doesn't come within the scope of the project, though members may be interested. --Kleinzach 04:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is it not within scope? — Cirt (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Because Indian classical music is not at all related to the European tradition of classical music. Graham87 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For some reason editors concerned with Indian art music like to use the word 'classical' but the word is used in a loose, anomalous way. Of course, 'classical' is also a problem with western tradition (see Classical music era) but that's another issue. --Kleinzach 05:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Kent Tritle

Kent Tritle is a great musician, but recent additions seem not factual. 3 reverts already, help wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I understood now that it's a new user and offered help. - Different problem: User talk:Mrepoulis, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to Tritle: the text until now resembles his bios a lot, help wanted after all to sort that out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Musical Heritage Society

Anyone have any thoughts on whether there's sufficient sourcing to try to start an article on the MHS? I used to love getting their albums every month... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Judging by this, amd especially this article syndicated by UPI, I'd say yes. I have subscription access to a news and magazine archive, highbeam.com, and could supply you with a few further sources if you want to create the article. Voceditenore (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Herman Rietzel

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Rietzel. – Voceditenore (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Haydn "The Cat" ?

An anonymous editor just added "The Cat" nickname to Symphony No. 99 (Haydn), List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn‎ and List of symphonies with names. I have never heard that one before. My first thought was that it was a joke, but I figured assume good faith and check here first. Anyone else hear of that nickname? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

One or two blogs and discussion forums have proposed this as a nickname for No. 99, but I can't find any evidence of established use. Unless a reliable source can be found, I think we should remove it. --Deskford (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

New Grove does not include this nickname, though they give all the usual ones. The anonymous editor added a concert programme note including the nickname to the Symphony No. 99 article, but that hardly counts as a reliable source. Even if it did, it does not explain the reason for the name.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nor does the De Capo Catalog which often gives some extra names. I wonder if the editor was somehow confusing it with the Cat fugue or something? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they're talking about "2S" ("1S" is actually "P" transposed). Its measure 71 of the first movement. The 3:30 mark of this recording: [9]. I do smile when I think "cat" when I listen to that, but I think Deskford is right, its sounds like some blog (or usenet) went through trying to come up with nicknames for the unnicknamed. As entertaining as that might be to think of such nicknames in a blog setting, those don't count as official nicknames. I'll revert the changes.DavidRF (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's thinking of "The Waltzing Cat"? But that's by Leroy Anderson. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Grieg Lyric Pieces

I suspect that no one is actively monitoring the talkpage for Lyric Pieces, so perhaps I should mention here a note I've just now posted there in the top Piece Listing section, concerning what is translated into English as "Spring dance". I don't have access to Grove. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime I've gone ahead and posted a footnote at two articles to address this problem. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)