Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Keyboard works by Bach

I just came across this article called Works for keyboard by J.S. Bach.

I'm wondering how useful it is. It seems to me at the moment that much of it is a directory of links to other, more useful articles. It's not a thorough list of the keyboard works: instead, the first thing the works section does is link to the keyboard section of the main article that lists Bach's compositions. And that main article provides the other links that are reproduced in the 'keyboard works' article.

The opening section, while lacking sources, might be useful somewhere as part of a discussion of Bach's legacy and influence.

These are my personal thoughts. Do people think it's worth having this article? Are there ways to improve it, and make it contribute something that isn't better dealt with elsewhere? Orfeocookie (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that it should be greatly expanded (would take a lot of work), or merged with another article, or deleted. --kosboot (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It appears like one of the reasons this article exists is completeness: apparently there was an effort to have genre oriented articles like this for all of Bach's work, which for this category may not have been pushed through that complete as for some of the other genres. This is also reflected in Template:Johann Sebastian Bach. I'd say merge into Johann Sebastian Bach#Works. Users that want to see the list of keyboard work can already go to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, users that want to know general information about this genre can go to (an enriched version of) Johann Sebastian Bach#Works. In case someone in the future is willing to create a dedicated article on the keyboard genre (e.g. make a page likeBach cantata or List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach, he/she can always resurrect it.LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Various merger proposals

I have done various classical music related merger proposals.

• List of genres into Genre et al. (talk).
• List of musical movements into Classical music (talk).
• Meter (hymn) into various (talk).
• Stile antico into Prima pratica (talk).

If you like help with a reply to (one of) these proposals, please add to the relevant talk pages. Thank you.LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No conductor

How would I say best in an infobox that an orchestra has no principal conductor? ... that it is a chamber orchestra? ... that it is able to perform on period instruments (and others)? Questions from Kammerorchester Basel (not to be confused with Basler Kammerorchester), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't because the infobox sensibly doesn't provide any parameters for those characteristics; that's what the article body has to provide. "Less is more" (or as the Germans say, "in der Kürze liegt die Würze" ~ possibly KISS). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Either leave the |principal_conductor= field blank, or enter "None". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As much as I like KISS, saying that an orchestra is a chamber orchestra would tell me something essential, also that it governs itself with out a conductor. In case of interest: the orchestra mentioned is a sheer source of delight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page on conductorless orchestras which could be linked in the Basler article, although I didn't get the impression that they didn't uses any conductors at all from reading the article. As for delight: I suspect an infobox parameter is not far away. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am less delighted about "conductorless": the word sounds like they miss something, and - as you observed - KOB appear with conductors, just don't have a single permanent "chief", intentionally so. Orpheus Chamber Orchestra would fit the category. In the recent performance, concert master Mayumi Hirasaki led, very gracefully,

Default type "Orchestra"

I've added a subheader which defaults to "Orchestra" but can be overridden by setting |type=; as I've done at theKammerorchester Basel article Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. How about something like that for infobox person, for example saying "composer" on top, avoiding the fights about "occupation" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Working on that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

ps: more generally, we writers know that a longish German string is an opera or a university or an orchestra, but for the readers, especially the browsing ones, some help might be useful, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Having a parameter |type= in an infobox named {{Infobox orchestra}} default to "Orchestra" seems to be redundant. It should be optional and have no default value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is as "redundant" as listing the subtitle of a book on its cover. Those who know (by following a blue link) to expect an article on an orchestra may find it redundant, - those who arrive at an article by chance may want to know the the German string they see on top means an orchestra. - If we define "redundant" too narrow we will not want book covers at all: redundant, it's all in the book. So I hear about infoboxes, "redundant" to the lead. They should be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got a MUCH better idea: don't have an infobox in the first place. Tony (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, sorry, you seem not to be around here often. Kleinzach worked on this one. - Also read above, would you argue against book covers because they are redundant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems I didn't explain myself very well. Let's try this: Having a parameter |type= in an infobox which is named "Infobox orchestra" default to the emitted and wiki-linked string "Orchestra" seems to be redundant. For an axample of it, see e.g. City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra where its redundant nature is is obvious, to me at least. The parameter should not have a default value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What type of ensemble is the CBSO, if not an orchestra? Which article other than Orchestra, would you prefer the template in that article to link to? Are you aware that the word orchestra from the infobox nameis not displayed? (Note also that this change fixes just one of the omissions caused by the disputed removal of the article's previous infobox in favour of this one; the previous box made clear that the subject was an orchestra, with a link).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect every reader of that article will deduce from its title that the subject is an orchestra; it shouldn't be repeated in the infobox. Yes, I am very much aware of the difference between a parameter name and its value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that Gerda has already addressed the issue of the deliberate redundancy in infoboxes, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice that I didn't explain well enough: we, the writers, know that is is "infobox orchestra", the reader who may meet the article by chance, doesn't. He will look first at the infobox (I suspect) and be helped seeing that the strange string which is the title is an orchestra (not a film title, not a historic event, you name it). I am willing to help such a reader. In the article, he will see that possibly after digesting a name, a help to pronounce it and a translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that an infobox is generally expected to be redundant. I also accept that my earlier objection based on the match between the infobox's name and its subject may not be valid in all circumstances. However, the example of the CBSO shows that a default output of "Orchestra" is unwarranted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I trust that a capable template writer can provide the means to not show "orchestra" if not wanted, for example if it would repeat part of the name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way not to show "Orchestra" when it's not needed is to have the infobox emit no output if the parameter |type= is not specified, the way most infobox parameters behave: not specified – no output. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Warlock

This is to make editors aware that an infobox was added to this FA article. For reasons which I explained on the talk page I reverted it. An editor has now reinstated it. --Smerus (talk) 09:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That said editor, Pigsonthewing/Andy, has reverted twice already to do this, and has (to put it neutrally) failed to justify imposing the infobox. Rather, he appears to have resorted to diversionary tactics and has been far from collegial from the word go (see Talk:Peter Warlock). Alfietucker (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

We illustrate again that "consensus" is easier requested than achieved. To me, it looks like three editors (one of them anomymous) form a team to revert what one (not Andy) installed. Let's talk, calm and factual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I was told "to say that 'it looks like' implies in English that you think 'it is'" - I did not intend to say "it is", that's exactly why I qualified, to not imply. Difficult language. (Which qualifier could I have used to not be misunderstood?) - We talk about facts on the mentioned talk page, everybody is welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not "we" who illustrate, it's Pigsonthewing who demonstrates his unwillingness to follow consensus. Nomen est omen?. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't formed - and I think never will - a team with anyone (I collaborate where appropriate, which is quite a different thing). I just happen to agree with Smerus on this issue. And to be 'factual' and reasonably calm, the fact is that Andy has twice reverted and failed to justify doing so. Alfietucker (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my bias, please. I have been accused of tag teaming where we just happened to agree, didn't even know the word before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Planned articles

Just to let people know I plan to write a stub article on the Études Op. 42 by Einojuhani Rautavaara (Not much online for them). I may also write an article covering (well listing) the études in a thesis I discovered while looking for material to add to the Debussy Études Principles of Organization in Piano Etudes by Stephen Paul Weber. Graham1973 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The stub article on the Rautavaara Etudes is complete and uploaded. Feel free to add anything or make corrections as needed.Graham1973 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sviatoslav Richter#Quotations

Should the quotations in the above article be transferred to WikiQuote? (I asked on the article's talk page 2 weeks ago but haven't had any answers.) George8211 ^{t c} 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking for permission to place a banner on behalf of Classical Music WikiProject

My first Wikipdia article about a classical piano duo has just been approved and I just wanted to ask for permission to place a banner on on behalf of Classical Music WikiProject on it. Please find the link to the article here: Carles and Sofia piano duo Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleparrot (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need permission; just do it! and congratulations on the article. -- kosboot (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission/Kleine Gigue in G for Keyboard, K. 574

Please have a look at this submission. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That article for submission seem to be redundant: see (the slightly misspelled and mixing 2 languages) Eine Kleine Gigue in G for Keyboard, K. 574 (should be lower case "kleine"; or maybe just "Gigue in G" as in the NMA). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Major discussions list updated

I've now updated the list of major discussions page to include recent debates and also the ArbCom case. Please let me know if I've left any items out. Thanks. Kleinzach 02:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed

The following has been issued by ArbCom: Kleinzach 01:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

Vote of thanks to Smerus

Smerus has now retired from Wikipedia. He’s been an outstanding music editor, working on articles relating to Richard Wagner, Charles-Valentin Alkan, Frédéric Chopin and other 19th-century composers. He’s also been a good and considerate colleague. We’ll miss him. Kleinzach 03:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer. A most unfortunate loss. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And Ignaz Moscheles - he'll indeed be missed as Kleinzach notes. Eusebeus (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping this will be a short retirement. He's certainly been a big help to me. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And from me too; if you feel like coming back, please do. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

1. Kleinzach 11:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Eusebeus (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Opus33 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
5. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
6. kosboot (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
7. Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
8. --Folantin (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
9. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
10. --Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
11. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
12. – Tim riley (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary roles/occupations of composers

How should the secondary, tertiary roles and occupations of composers be treated in the lead?

Should we say "X was a composer, conductor and cellist." or "Y was a composer. . . . . He was also a conductor and pianist."?

This question has come up in relation to Benjamin Britten, see here but as Alfietucker points out, it also relates to other 20th century composers such as Stravinsky, Prokofiev and Shostakovich.

Any thoughts? Kleinzach 08:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The first form is so common(sense) that I do not see why this should be changed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on this, but I'm pretty sure the first form is customary, and I'm comfortable with it. No vigorous objection if the contrary view prevails, though. Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the article on Alexander Borodin serves as a good example (not just the lede but the article body, too). -- kosboot (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Poulenc list

I was unable to see either the Quatre Poèmes de Guillaume Apollinaire or his Métamorphoses on List of compositions by Francis Poulenc and was going to add them but then also saw that the solo piano are listed separately, and I wondered if this was deliberate. The French equivalent, though too colourful seems more complete. I would have thought it would be better to have all his compositions in one. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The List of solo piano compositions by Francis Poulenc is linked in the normal place so I don't see this is a problem. It is common to split lists of compositions when they get large (typically with a separate list of operas), though the piano list is admittedly on the short side. IMO making the List of compositions by Francis Poulenc sortable (using FP numbers?) would be the best way of going forward. Kleinzach 00:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission/Franz Hitz

Is he notable? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Eight of his works are included in IMSLP [1] and there are a few performances on YouTube, so the answer is probably yes. Does anyone have access to Grove? The German Wiki Franz Hitz [2] is about someone else. Kleinzach 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox orchestra

Between 13 and 24 August, there were a series of changes made to this infobox by two editors, now blocked for their conduct [3]. The changes essentially enlarged the box beyond what had been agreed in the original discussion here, when the box was set up. Should we now revert to the version by Opus33 dated 14 August?

One editor also wants to keep the pop music Infobox musical artist for orchestra use. I have tried to clarify this, but each time I've been reverted [4] [5]. Actually, I don't think there are any orchestra articles with Infobox musical artist, but it would be better to make it clear that there is a fit for purpose' box designated for these articles. Any thoughts? So far I haven't done anything about these issues, especially as I'm not completely up-to-date on the details. Kleinzach 08:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No editor was blocked, and restrictions refer to adding and deleting infoboxes. I think it serves the reader to know that L'arpa festante is not a cantata (the orchestra is named after one) but a Baroque orchestra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Arguably the article title should be disambiguated, but it would be easy enough to title the box 'L'arpa festante (orchestra)'. Anyway, there will be very few cases like this. Kleinzach 03:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

My main concern with that infobox was the unnecessary addition of a field called |type= which defaulted to (the linked) term Orchestra; this behaviour has been removed. Other changes between Opus33's and the current version are the addition of |Founder= and |past_principal_conductors=. Reverting to Opus33's version would remove those paramaters, including |type=. There's no way of knowing how many current invocations of that infobox use those parameters and whether those uses are meaningful or not. I don't think it matters much whether they stay or go.

That {{Infobox musical artist}} is meant for musical artists and not classical orchestras seems self-evident; User:Montanabw's objections to such clarification are exactly what I expected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that, an ArbCom case cautioning ALL users notwithstanding, the obsession of WP Classical music against infoboxes never evereverever appearing in their precious articles continues unabated. I have no objections to improving a classical music or orchestra infobox. Here we are discussing a set of instructions, for pete's sake. However, there is crossover, such as the Boston Pops Orchestra, and in addition, a pop artist may well have a classical orchestra involved with their work, need I remind you all of Days of Future Passed? Furthermore, though most often a classical music ensemble, the word orchestra, absent qualification, is not inherently limited only to classical music (how about Electric Light Orchestra, for example? Sure they were a glam rock band, but who's to say they are misnamed, eh?). I'm here because you tagged me and it popped up in the notifications, so I guess you want my opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, Montanabw. I wasn't named in the ArbCom case, but to my mind, if one looks at the overall direction of Wikipedia (for example, if one regularly reads the Signpost and keeps abreast of Wikidata), Infoboxes are becoming essential structural elements of Wikipedia--NOT in traditional sense of a paper encyclopedia, but as a essential structural feature of the semantic web. Infoboxes are used in several ways to enhance other language Wikipedias. To not have Infoboxes is the same as refusing to allow such articles to be used outside en:WP--basically insuring that classical music remains the domain of the elitist English-language speakers and shut off to the rest of the world--totally illogical and irrational, IMO, but I'm not interested in arguing about it.--kosboot (talk)

WTF? Here's Kleinzach seeking a discussion about the appropriate use and delineation of two infoboxes, me giving my opinion on the subject, and Montanabw and kosbbot see the spectre of an imaginary anti-infobox crowd. Get a grip! In detail: 1) I can't understand the examples Montanabw gives because none support his/her arguments – if using {{Infobox musical artist}} for orchestras is her/his argument; 2) I have no idea what Gerda's example is supposed to prove; 3) Google seems quite capable of extracting relevant information from articles without infoboxe; if kosboot thinks they are essential, I recommend starting a RfC to have WP:INFOBOXUSE say so. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please just grow up and quit attacking people, Bednarek, Kleinzach was one of the leaders of the anti-infobox group across multiple articles; and Kleinzach, NO ONE has been permanently blocked over the infobox issue, don't mischaracterize things. You were a master of weaseling out of sanctions at ArbCom and letting Smerus take the fall for you, I am not impressed. As for the issue, my reversion was only to Kleinzach's insistence that the word "orchestra" had to be changed in the directions. I'll leave the technical issues to others. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the first request right (but there are many things that I don't understand) it requests to get rid of |type= which for the mentioned orchestra shows under its name that it is a Baroque orchestra (translation of Barockorchester), something I find helpful because it tells you that the Italian phrase is not a special kind of harp or a cantata. Nothing to prove, just trying to help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Template:Infobox orchestra to the last consensus-backed version (of Opus33). This is the least controversial version — basically including the fields that we can agree on, not the fields on which we disagree. I hope it can remain as it is, at least until the forthcoming RFC on infoboxes has taken place.

The attempt by the larger community to resolve the infobox problem — as mandated by ArbCom — should go ahead without a whole lot of unnecessary edit wars and skirmishes in the background. Kleinzach 03:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

We agree on that, but do look in the mirror, eh? (noogies)

• The step back in time leaves the L'arpa festante question unresolved. I asked about a qualifier, feeling uneasy about it while there is no article without one. I also think that it would be good to know if an orchestra is a chamber orchestra or an early music orchestra. Please think about that. |type= was a good solution, do you have another to offer? If you don't want |founder= (a suggestion by Tim riley, as far as I remember), could you at least add something like |people=, for people associated with an orchestra other than the present conductor who may be of minor importance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-hoc annotation: I've been away and busy in the real world, so I've missed this discussion. All I want to say here is that the "version by Opus33" mentioned above was whatever was in place before I reverted some addition. So, my name is on it, but it's not my work. As for the issue of long infoboxes, I think this essay is thoughtful and worth pondering; take a look if you haven't seen it. Opus33 (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The essay you point out is good, see my comments to its discussion. Infobox orchestra is not "long", and I miss useful parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Useful subheaders

I find subheaders useful. A few orchestras show in their name already that they are an orchestra, for example the CBSO. Others don't. Please let's not assume that every reader knows that a "Philharmonic" is an orchestra. Some names don't imply orchestra, such as Lautten Compagney. Some are in a language other than English, such as Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern. In addition, I would - as a reader - be interested right on top what kind of orchestra, chamber, string, conductorless, Early music, festival, community, radio, you name it. I liked |type= for both purposes. Are there other suggestions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This question is here for the context, but should be discussed at the template talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Another AfC submission

What about him? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Fête des belles eaux" ou "Fêtes des belles eaux"?

Mesdames et Messieurs:

• "Fête des belles eaux" - "About 21,900 results"
• "Fêtes des belles eaux" - "About 10,600 results"

Petit Pierre en Australie aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's La Fête des belles eaux. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the singular form is the correct one according to the Library of Congress. -- kosboot (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni Battista Bononcini?

I have doubts about the historical validity of this particular page name. Please comment here. Thank you. 86.162.136.32 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed by Voceditenore. Thank you, 86.162.136.32 (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Baroque music?

Ok then, here goes with another... Neo-Baroque music is an unsourced stub which, with the possible exception of the last sentence, almost entirely consists of egregious POV/OR. As there's nothing really there to merge I think it should be a redirect to Neoclassicism (music), which imo is the right place to discuss the term. Thoughts? 86.162.136.32 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done some clean-up, though I fear the present mini-stub [6] reads a bit like a dictionary definition. 86.162.136.32 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2nd proposed deletion of [Category Classical albums by date]

discussion here again. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Creating a RISM template

Hey folks, I'd like to create a template that would easily link WP to the RISM database (opac.rism.info). I've never created one before. Do I just do it, or does there need to be discussion? -- kosboot (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for a discussion beforehand, although I suggest to raise it here again once you've got a template to look at, before deploying it. But: what would links to the database records of the Répertoire International des Sources Musicales (RISM) provide? From my brief investigation, a description and an incipit of sorts; see this for Gregorio Allegri's Miserere. Is that a worthwhile addition to the article? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of series A II, for manuscripts (for which I've made a start on articles and have others planned). I also was recently in contact with someone from RISM who intends to strengthen their presence on WP. -- kosboot (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Care to inspect this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Now in article space, following my comments there. It still needs some work. See the "String Trios, Op. 9 (Beethoven)" section below. Voceditenore (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been creating articles on works of Handel and expanding others from stubs, can others let me know what they think?

Hi, I plan to continue to create and expand articles on works of Handel (and eventually Purcell) and would just like some opinion on if the way I am doing them seems OK. Examples - article I created Chandos Anthem No.1 /Jubilate in D Major "O, be joyful in the Lord", article I expanded from a stub Saul (Handel). Thanks,Smeat75 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(still watching) I did the same (Gloria (Handel), Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate), like your articles but find the first article name needlessly complicated, - I hope there are redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

String Trios, Op. 9 (Beethoven)

This is a recently created article via AfC. I've managed to clean it up and reference it though the first paragraph of the "Music" section. Alas, the remaining 3 (short) paragraphs are subjective personal responses, score interpretation etc. and completely unreferenced. This is not my area. If anyone feels like tackling those paragraphs—rewriting and referencing them—it would be great. The existing four sources which I added to the article can probably used for referencing purposes in those 3 paragraphs without having to go further afield. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ogg wishlist

Wikimania 2014 will be held in the Barbican Centre in London, a concert venue, one of the ideas we're playing with is a free culture music stream with singers and a scratch orchestra, to be recorded as ogg files and uploaded to Commons. If we do do this would members of this task force like to suggest pieces and excerpts that they would like to see.--KTo288 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Hinton (composer)

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Hinton (composer). Voceditenore (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)