Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Symphony, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major

A discussion to delete this category has led to a lengthy disucssion, inculding numerous proposals and counterproposals. Editors may wish to comment on some or all of these in one way or another. For convenience I have appended to the discussion a summary of the proposals to date.--Smerus (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories:Compositions in [Key]

All categories of the form 'Compositions in [Key]' (e.g. Category:Compositions in A major, etc.) fail WP:TRIVIALCAT. The rules for categories state clearly "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." The fact that pieces are in the same key does not meet this criterion. There seems nothing intrinsic uniting various pieces of music that have the same key signature. There are no reputable secondary sources, reference books or articles on 'pieces in [key]' (as far as I am aware). WP:TRIVIALCAT gives as examples of trivial categories 'Red haired kings, Bald People, Famous redheads, Age of death, Mirrors in fiction.' 'Compositions in [Key]' is exactly in this class of trivia - it is the same as would be, e.g. 'Red pictures' or 'Books beginning with the letter J'. I would like therefore to refer these categories to CfD for deletion. Really it seems they are just cruft. Comments welcome, please, before I do (or don't, depending on the strength of response here).--Smerus (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

PS the subcategories 'Jazz compositions in [key]' are even more bizarre - many of the articles do not mention keys, often the comment in the article is of the order of the following (completely unsourced) in Autumn Leaves (song) - " It was originally, and is most commonly, performed in the key of E minor, but is also played in G minor and other keys. Eva Cassidy's version (clip on the right) is played in B-flat minor." The article is listed in both the G minor and E minor categories.--Smerus (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Having recently been introduced to and begun editing in Wikidata, the realization came to me that 1) most WP categories are unnecessary because they can be done more efficiently by Wikidata; 2) you *can* search by key using Wikidata. kosboot (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mass in B minor? Symphony in C (Stravinsky) and Symphony in E-flat (Stravinsky)? For some article topics the key signature is defining, in the categorization sense. For comparison, see WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title, first paragraph. The overcategorization is not in the existence of the "...in [Key]" categories, but in applying it too easily to compositions that are hardly ever mentioned by their key signature. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on this one. Here's what I could think of.

In the 18th century, some people believed that there are expressive traits attached to particular keys; see this for a quick peek. The musicologist Rita Steblin wrote a whole book about this topic ([1]). The particular case of Beethoven and C minor is vaguely famous; various people have weighed in for some kind of association. In the days before equal temperament won out, the various keys when played on keyboard instruments possessed particular timbres, based on which intervals were more discordant. Some instruments sound better played in certain keys (like the violin, for which music is often written in its open-string keys). And for many instruments, certain keys are easier to play in than others and thus get chosen for use in concertos and other solo pieces. These are all reasons why the key of a piece is not totally arbitrary.

Should "Compositions in X major/minor" therefore be a category? I'm not sure. I've certainly seen more trivial categories on WP, though maybe that doesn't count as an argument. Opus33 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My view is much more pragmatic: if the categories are useful to some readers, why not have them? I vaguely remember that this has been discussed before, and it's more interesting to see that Barber's Agnus Dei is in B-flat minor than some composition which carries its key openly in the common name. Needless to say that the category should not be applied to songs, frequently transposed. However, for Traum durch die Dämmerung, I bet the key was meaningfully chosen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus that these categories can be irrelevant and trivial in some cases, and with Francis, Opus33 and Gerda that they can be highly defining and significant in others. As for Wikidata: I suspect that its data set is a closed book and inaccessible to most Wikipedia readers; more importantly, there's no editorial control over its content. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On some of the points raised so far: I think Francis Schonken is not quite on the point. If he, or any other individual, thinks that he identifies two or more different pieces by different composers as somehow belonging together just because they are in the same key, that's WP:POV and doesn't justify making a category. No one of course is suggesting that Mass in B minor, Symphony in C (Stravinsky), etc. should be renamed. The question is simply how can a category be justified. The 'B minorness' of all pieces of music in that key is not attested to by reliable secondary sources as a quality which has encyclopaedic validity. @Gerda Arendt: , you write "if the categories are useful to some readers"...but there is no evidence that they are useful (only evidence that some people enjoy crufting articles with pointless categories). If you want to know the key of Barber's Agnus Dei, you look up the article, you don't trawl through 24 categories until you find it. Opus33, if "people believed that there are expressive traits attached to particular keys", then those beliefs can be adumbrated (and cited) in the articles relating to those keys. That doesn't however in itself justify the category. @Michael Bednarek: You seem to accept that lumping together everything in a key doesn't make a useful category; the problem is that deciding for which eligible articles a category might be useful and in which cases not is always going to be a matter of WP:POV (unless you can provide a reliable secondary source for your judgement); this would seem by WP standards to render these categories unacceptable.--Smerus (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) I agree with Gerda - someone might find this category useful, and it costs nothing to have it. Suppose someone wants to do some research about violin pieces in D♭ major (in fact, an interesting subject in itself!)? Smerus, just because you find this trivial doesn't mean that others also don't. (2) I agree with Opus33 that the category itself is essentially nontrivial. (3) In principle, I disagree with the guideline in this matter that trivial categories should be deleted. I dream of the day - not so far away - that we can make natural language queries of the Wikipedia. Like, "Show me all the musicians born in Bohemia who lived in Vienna between the years 1900 to 1914." For the time being, we can't do that, and the closest thing we have so far is categories. Every category, no matter how hairbrained, will possibly help some researcher do cross-sectioning in surprising and possibly significant ways. So I say - leave 'em. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(from Mass for the Dresden court (Bach):) "(in 18th century Saxony) D major (...) was the most usual key for festive music including trumpets, because of the Saxon natural trumpet ..."

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I added this example in order to illustrate that key signatures don't always follow from a subjective appreciation of "inherent" qualities of a key. Sometimes it's just practical (but no less defining in a Wikipedia sense, see further discussion below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Just started Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I will leave well enough alone :-). Thanks to all for the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not what happened, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_24#Category:Compositions_with_natural_trumpets_in_D_major --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF vs. WP:TRIVIALCAT

From WP:CATDEF: "...A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..."

For some compositions the key signature is a "characteristic ... that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having", e.g. Symphony in E-flat (Stravinsky), Mass in B minor, Piano Sonata in A major, D 664 (Schubert).

For other compositions the key signature is almost never mentioned, as a rule, e.g. the key signature of most operas is not even listed anywhere.

No WP:OR is needed to interpret "why" reliable sources commonly and consistently define a subject having a certain characteristic. Are these reliable sources discussing trivialities? Are they plainly wrong in giving any attention to the fact that Carravaggio is Italian? Do such qualifications have a merely esoterical meaning? – not for Wikipedians to decide: "commonly and consistently" in the prose of reliable sources mandates categorization in Wikipedia, that's the rule.

WP:TRIVIALCAT (one of the instances of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION) on the other hand lists characteristics of subjects that are not what "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having", but "characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability." Being in B minor is not "unrelated or wholly peripheral to the ... notability" of the Mass in B minor. Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass has pages and pages discussing key signatures of Masses in all kinds of contexts. So, not trivial, subject of serious scholarly study.

Above I wrote: The overcategorization is not in the existence of the "...in [Key]" categories, but in applying it too easily to compositions that are hardly ever mentioned by their key signature. I stand by that.

As for viable subcategories of the "...in [Key]" categories, I stand by e.g. Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in C, for which there are sources like Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass (p. 236), The Cambridge Mozart Encyclopedia (p. 271-272). I don't say having "natural trumpets in C" is the most common way to refer to the compositions cited in these sources (K. 220, K. 262, K. 257, K. 258, K. 259, Missa Cellensis,...), but a viable subcategory of Category:Compositions in C major when that category becomes too big (there's nothing irregular about splitting large categories based on secondary characteristics).

Whether Category:Jazz compositions in C major is another of such useful splits I can't say, I'm less acquainted with that topic area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Template:Sergei Prokofiev

Hello. In Template:Sergei Prokofiev, the links to Prokofiev's piano concertos and piano sonatas are missing. When I try to edit the table by pressing "E", they are there, but they do not display when the table is shown on an article (for example, on Sergei Prokofiev). The table only displays Prokofiev's "other" (non-piano) concertos and his "other" (non-sonata) piano solo works. I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it without messing it all up. Would anyone be able to help? Thank you. Syek88 (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For templates, it sometimes seems to take some time to show the corrected way, seems to have to do with cashed versions. You probably fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't edit it to try to fix the problem, though (other than an unrelated edit for his Sonata for Two Violins). I expect that the table has been like this for some time. I don't know how to fix it all - it's all gobbledygook to me! Syek88 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw now, it's a problem with the subgroups, - I fixed it for now, showing all together, - will look and learn what's wrong, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Syek88 (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I through out all styling efforts, now it works. We would have two more groups available, in case we don't want subgroups. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Khatia Buniatishvili COI editing?

Looks like a PR piece, written by a succession of single use/single article accounts. - Pianosoon (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• not only that, but the photo is suspect. It seems the same photo was already once deleted as without copyright permission. It was then reuploaded by a user claiming it was their own work - and remains the user's only upload to WikiCommons.--Smerus (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is written mainly by two users, Eka-eka-eka92 in 2013 and SamSClassical in 2014, neither of whom (if they are different people) has bothered to register. To me this looks like hired work. I'm not sure what one can do about this, other than point out that many of those sources are suspect (certainly not the performer's website). kosboot (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any mileage in looking for paid editing. The article is promotional in tone and needs clean-up, but there are enough sources, even ignoring the primary ones, to indicate notability. @Kosboot:, I think you're misread the article's history. Eka-eka-eka92' edits (diff) are entirely to do with pictures. SamSClassical's (diff) are more extensive, but the article was already at 10,394 bytes before he started, and he actually reduced its size, for example, removing the crufty paragraph that began "Performances are available via social networking sites". I've tagged it {{Peacock}} and {{Copyedit}} (for=tone). --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The subject is clearly notable. I have a feeling the article was promotion from the very outset. [2] Some sources on her 2014 London performances.[3][4][5] Pianosoon (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was quite alarmed to see the selective collection of reviews of Buniatishvili's recordings, inaccurately representing the critical response. Consequently, I have inserted into the article some stark contrary opinions from Gramophone, which I felt were necessary to balance the cherry-picked praise. There are other scathing reviews too - http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/columnists/scott-cantrell/20140408-review-pianist-khatia-buniatishvili-was-all-about-self-indulgence.ece and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/classicalconcertreviews/10878171/Khatia-Buniatishvili-Queen-Elizabeth-Hall-review-sorely-disappointing.html Syek88 (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ji Liu (pianist)

Alerted on my talk by DJRafe, who cleaned up Ji Liu (pianist), I reverted once and went to the talk, but it needs more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Symphony No. [X] pages

See discussion I initiated at Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Spam?

Take a look, if you will, at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Morriskahn. I wonder if the many books all published by the same publisher are each legitimate references source in context, or whether we are perhaps being used by a publisher as a free advertising platform. I don't know the books myself so I am not sure; maybe someone else has better information? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that too. The publisher is Kahn and Averill. A week or so ago I reported User:Kahn and Averill at UAA and it was blocked as a spam account. Will look into this one now. --Stfg (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this account is doing nothing but adding books from that publisher to articles. --Stfg (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice taken and SPI raised. --Stfg (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I see from here that Morris Kahn was a founder of Kahn and Averill. I also see that he died in 2014 so he's either editing from the grave or someone is impersonating him. --Deskford (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. What is SPI? Opus33 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI = Sockpuppet investigations, e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kahn_and_Averill. Looking through the links, at least some of the books appear to be useful and appropriate as "further reading", but there's an obvious conflict of interest as the publishing house is adding links to their own publications. Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this, for example, is a good addition. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Kahn & Averill is an excellent music publisher, from what I've seen. In most cases, their books have definitely place in our articles, as sources or "further reading". To me, it's hard to call their editing "spamming". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The books listed in biographical articles under a "Writings" section which were written by the subject are fine. A few of the "Further reading" ones are useful, but most are not, e.g. Mozart and the Pianist added to Mozart, which is essentially a guide for pianists on how to play Mozart's piano music. They are never appropriate to be added as "Sources" or "References", unless they have been actually used as such. Yes, this is spam, regardless of the worth of the publishing house, and no doubt prompted by the fact that they have just launched their new website. I'm going to leave him a note saying that given the obvious COI, he needs to suggest additions on article talk pages and let uninvolved editors assess whether they are worth adding. Interestingly the new name he appears to have chosen is Morris Kahn, the founder of the publishing house who died last year and apparently had no children. Not quite impersonation, but unless he's a nephew... well... Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

... he needs to suggest additions on article talk pages and let uninvolved editors assess whether they are worth adding is a sensible solution and a good advice for that account, I would say. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I take it back that a "Writings" section for books which were written by the subject is fine. Not exactly. What this user did was replace the information about the date and publisher of the first editions of the books with information solely about their reprint (often many years later) which is very misleading to the reader. See Pierre Bernac for example. I've since rectified that one. But their other changes to "Writings" sections need to be fixed if they haven't already been reverted. Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your advice on their talk page is excellent, Voceditenore. Yesterday I went through the contributions and removed a few of them, including the graded guides for pianists. But it was difficult because, as Vejvančický says, many of the added books appear relevant and useful at first sight. In the end, I retained far more than I removed. But this is clearly spamming: this and the previous account did nothing except add listings of books published by this publishing house, and this one, for example, is blatantly a plug. I won't be removing any more of them myself, but would welcome another one or two pairs of eyes on this. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that linking newer and still available editions by an account connected to the publishing house is likely spamming. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to gradually check all their additions of "Writings" sections and restore or change the information to the first editions. I personally find using the {{OCLC}} template much more useful than ISBN for situations like this. An OCLC number takes you directly to the WorldCat entry which allows you to view all the editions and formats of a particular work with their dates and publishers. ISBN is basically a commercial book identifier, and in my view can be appropriate for indicating the specific edition of book used in a reference, but not much else. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I've also noticed User:Morriskahn adding entries for Kahn & Averill publications. Perhaps someone should block him? kosboot (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

kosboot, User:Morriskahn is pretty obviously a sock of the already blocked User:Kahn and Averill. I imagine this cuurent incarnation will also be blocked following the SPI here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for showing that to me, VdT. kosboot (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lidia Grychtołówna and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lidia Grychtołówna

Dear classical music experts: A draft has been created about this pianist, but there is already a small existing article. I could do a content merge, but both the draft and the mainspace article seem short of independent sources. I haven't found much in English. I am willing to content-merge these two pages, but only if this is a notable pianist. Any opinions?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The place to look would be whether the listed recordings are on major labels. But the AFC is virtually a copy-paste of her page on the Fryderyk Chopin Institute site, and it's distinctly puffy, so it needs much more than a basic merge. --Stfg (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I will leave it then; if the subject isn't notable, maybe the mainspace article needs an AfD. Sorry, I don't know much about record labels, so I'd have to depend on someone else to do that kind of check.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suspect all those recordings make her "notable" in the WP sense, so I won't be doing anything with the mainspace article, but why not go ahead with the G13 of the AFC, since it qualifies for that and moreover is almost entirely close paraphrase. --Stfg (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's done. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lost musical works

Is there a WP article/list of musical works which are known to have existed but are lost? (I'm posting this also at WP:Opera). kosboot (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a category Category:Lost musical works, which contains a few items. And then of course Category:Lost operas. Antandrus (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: can I just briefly say waaaa! at this point? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has taken off nicely at WikiProject Opera so I'll be focusing my efforts there for a while. kosboot (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Following on from DBaK, can we say that the work in question is 'lost'? Perhaps we need a new category, Category:Putative musical works? Just saying.--Smerus (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting resource (courtesy of MLA-L) for someone to file away in their sandbox until the right time comes along: Rudolf A. Rasch, "How Much Is Lost, or Do We Know What We Don’t Know? Observations on the Loss of Printed Music from the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," Album amicorum Albert Dunning in occasion del suo LXV compleanno, a cura di Giacomo Fornari (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), 461-94. kosboot (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Another commercial plugger (sigh...)

or perhaps just a confirmed clutterer...Special:Contributions/Piano_au.....--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Zapped by me and MarnetteD. The site has no ads and does not appear to be selling anything either, but that doesn't make it an appropriate external link. I find that in general classical music articles tend to attract way too many external links which serve no encyclopedic purpose at all and their External links sections get turned into web directories. I removed a couple of others in addition to the ones you highlighted. But the articles for all the major composers still need a lot of pruning of their External links sections. The bigger they are and the more they're filled with links that do not pass WP:EL, the more they attract Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability help

Hello all! Could I get an opinion here? Appreciated, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too impatient, but I don't want to spend five minutes trying to untangle acronyms and implied reasoning. Could you tell us specifically what are you asking for help on? kosboot (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi kosboot. FoCuS is wondering if anyone has any knowledge about or sources for the US-based firm Benning Violins or its founder, Paul Toenniges. There seems to be some stuff in specialist music/instrument journals, but they're only viewable as snippets on Google. The conversation is on my talk page at User talk:Voceditenore#Violins. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Thanks for the help, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

New Grove access anyone?

A bit bizarre to see Imrat Khan, the world's leading classical sitar and surbahar player, nominated for deletion, but the article is very poorly referenced. Could anyone with access to New Grove please make reference to his article there? I have no access to Grove, and have only seen his article referred to in a third-party source. --Deskford (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The AfD has been withdrawn, but it would still be good to have the Grove reference. --Deskford (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore has added it. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So I see – thanks Voceditenore! I've tried to add a bit more but am finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable sources online. --Deskford (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI (Re: Michael Haydn Hoaxes)

There's a discussion on an external forum (here) regarding edits to the articles about compositions by Michael Haydn. It might be interesting for the members of this project and mainly for User:DavidRF who did a lot of good work in this area. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was an editor more for Joseph Haydn than for Michael. Works by a second-tier composer like Michael Haydn would be a relatively easy place to inject hoax-comments such as the ones above. Few would question the noteworthiness of articles for works by Michael Haydn, but few would also have the expertise to seriously critique these. And few people are going to read these articles that carefully as well. Hoaxes are more quickly caught in higher-traffic articles. As for the "Emperor Palpatine" hoax, that title is actually close to "Elector Palatine" which was a real thing. A clever way to insert an outrageous hoax that a history buff might skim over without noticing.

Another Michael Haydn twist was that most of these articles were created and originally maintained by User:Anton Mravcek who turned out to be a sockpuppet of Dmetric in one of the biggest sockpuppet farms I've heard about on Wikipedia. It was a really strange time. All of this interest in the Haydn brothers and a lot of it turned out the be the same guy. Most of the posts seemed well-meaning (they guy did like Michael Haydn!) but when the sock farm is that large, it certainly lowers the trustworthiness of the edits. Anyhow, perhaps editors like James470 or other "schizophrenic" (often well-meaning but often crazy) like User:Willi Gers07 may have been other incarnations of Dmetric as well. I don't know.DavidRF (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your hint regarding Dmetric, David. Follow the link, there's an interesting development, I would say. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like all the bad stuff is at least 3 years old. None of the offending editors appear to be around anymore. All the discussions on the ease of subtle vandalism on low-traffic pages have been had, so not much to do besides fix things and move on.DavidRF (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

James470, Incarnatus, Detroit Joe, and a whole bunch of others are Dmetric. I keep a list offline. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Steinway

Sone time ago there was a notice here about a pianist's page being edited by a marketer. I have discovered something much graver: an editor, likely to be a PR operative, whitewashing Steinway & Sons. This should be of concern to classical music lovers. There is a discussion at Talk:Steinway & Sons. Syek88 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lea Luboshutz

Could we get Draft:Lea Luboshutz into the mainspace? It seems like she is almost certainly notable. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The phrase establishing notability in the lede ("...one of the first female classical musicians with an international touring career") seems a bit dubious to me. First, I think many (female) opera singers had had international careers by then, second it has hardly been established whether the concerts she gave as an instrumental soloist (especially the "international" ones) were noticed in terms of press reviews etc. Can concrete sources be given to support such content? I'll add a {{OR}} to the draft for now where I think it is due, I suppose you're in the clear once an adequate reference can be given.

Re. "a subject doesn't need to be verified, just "verifiable"" – True, but "verifiable" implies it can be verified without much ado. Not much use to insert something in mainspace that once a first verification is attempted (or even before) goes AfD-ways. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good points. I agree. Well, let's hope something at google books can be found to show notability. Many thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The following is a brief entry from the 1973 Biographical Dictionary of American Music: "LUBOSHUTZ, LEA b. 1887 Odessa, Russia, d. 1965. Violinist and teacher. Sister of Pierre Luboshutz and mother of Boris Goldovsky; studied at Moscow Conservatory; soloist with orchestras in Europe and U.S., then became a teacher at Curtis Institute of Music, Philadelphia." She is also known as Lea Luboschutz, and it is under that spelling that there is considerable information on the internet. For example, it was under that spelling of her name that she performed the Prok-Violin-1 with the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1928: http://worldcat.org/digitalarchive/content/server15982.contentdm.oclc.org/BSYMO/PROG/TRUSVolume6/Pub411_1937-1938_Trip_SandCam_Con01.pdf. A concert performance with a major metropolitan orchestra is no trivial matter. Syek88 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The effort needed to prep the draft for mainspace inclusion seems minimal then... any takers? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So, mainspace it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Update

The AfC was declined again with "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." because the article had only 6 inline citations and 6 non-inline.

Will someone who knows classical music make a bold decision to approve this article and move it to the mainspace? If not, this draft will eventually be deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, DGG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

btw, although she is clearly notable, the condition for moving a draft into mainspace is merely that it would be likely to be approved at AfD, not certainly approved. I'll usually move anything I think has a 80% chance--other people's standards vary. The principle behind this is that no one person should be a barrier. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Missing articles:Bach Cantatas site

Greetings all. I've started this. Help completing the list and starting missing articles would be very much appreciated. Something worthy to work towards gradually...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The way it's phrased there makes it appear as if you're asking for assistance with that web site. I assume instead you mean that the Wikipedia articles, currently redlinked, are what you're after? --Stfg (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it kinda obvious I'm drawing up a missing list of articles?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it kinda obvious that it isn't kinda obvious? That's why I asked. "what is missing in the wider context on the Bach Cantatas website" seems to refer to what is missing in the wider context on the Bach Cantatas website. --Stfg (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're on here to build wikipedia not the Bach cantatas website :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed :) --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Good approach. I wonder if we can show - perhaps in a different colour or by a letter - if the term in question has already a red link in our article space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Rondo in B minor for violin and piano, D 895 (Schubert) - Copy-paste?

I was reading the above mentioned article (I also made edits anonymously on 25/26 April after forgetting my password.) and it reads like a straight transcription from a program note rather than a paraphrase of one. I don't have a copy of the program note given as the only source ("Carnegie Hall program booklet, March 18, 1997.") to check this out so I was wondering if anyone can help with checking this as not all program notes are online. Graham1973 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree it reads exactly like a transcription. It's also effectively WP:ESSAY and none of the assertions are individually cited to an acceptable source. Obviously whoever wrote the original programme note had a lot of space to fill! Maybe the best thing is simply to edit it all down to a couple of straightforward paragraphs, which is as much as the topic deserves.--Smerus (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at other articles created by User:BFolkman he appears to make a habit of transcribing large chunks of programme notes (e.g. Don Quichotte à Dulcinée), - and moreover from his recent edit at Oboe Concerto (Strauss) Mr. Folkman appears to be a programme-note writer himself - so one doesn't have to be a Sherlock to guess where the article is from. Can we politely address the editor on this? I have pinged him on the rondo talk page.--Smerus (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I have now edited the page down.--Smerus (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Free access to RIPM

Hello all! The Wikipedia Library has just launched a partnership with RIPM to offer Wikipedians free access to this archive of music periodicals. Please sign up for one of the 20 free accounts at WP:RIPM. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

New article by newbie needing help

Hi all. This article on conductor Stephen Simon was just created by an inexperienced editor. Some help with reference formatting, categories, copy editing etc. is needed if any of you have time.4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Added him to Simon (surname) to be getting along with. Narky Blert (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)