Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

A particular naming issue

Hello!

I have a problem naming a particular article on a work by Anton Reicha, and since the composer is not very well known (to say the least), and classical music isn't exactly a very popular topic, I decided to ask for help here, rather that at the Help Desk - but if you feel that my question belongs there, feel free to tell me that.

The problem is this: I've been working on Anton Reicha for a while, and I would like to create an article about his work 36 Fugues for piano, Op. 36. Its one of his major works and I have found have some printed sources discussing it briefly. But I have no idea how to name the article. I've read the guidelines here and in the MoS, and accodring to the "make sure its easy to find" rule, I should name it "36 Fugues (Reicha)". But Reicha's cycle seems to be the only one to have 36 fugues, even searching for "36 Fugues" in Google yields only results about Reicha's work. So maybe the title should be simply 36 Fugues? It doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me, I have to say.

Looking at the Beethoven worklist, there are some other options, like Fugues, Op. 36 as in Bagatelles, Opus 126 (Beethoven). Or should I spell out the number: Thirty-Six Fugues, Opus 36 (Reicha), as in Twenty-Five Scottish Songs, Opus 108 (Beethoven)? Again, mentioning Reicha in the title looks good, but probably isn't right since there's just one cycle of 36 fugues. I honestly tried browsing through other articles on works by Beethoven, Chopin, Shostakovich, etc., but failed to understand how I should name my article.

Most of this also applies to another article I wanted to create about a Reicha work, his "24 Trios for three horns", Op. 82 - 24 Horn Trios (Reicha), perhaps? Or should I mention the opus number? By the way, just to add to the complexity, "Op. 36" for the fugues is not a standard: Reicha's work hasn't been extensively studied, so some catalogues list it as Op. 36 and some don't give it an opus number at all.

Anyway, I'd be very grateful for any help. I know I probably talk too much and make a problem out of nothing, but I just can't help being pedantic in a case like this, and I wouldn't want to disrupt Wikipedia by naming the article wrongly. I'm sorry if I'm not brief enough and/or if this message really belongs to the Help Desk - just tell me if it is so, and I'll move it. Jashiin 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an opinion, but I like 36 Fugues (Reicha). The parenthetical Reicha helps because not many people are going to be familiar with either the work or the composer. An Opus number in the title is usually only helpful if there are more than one articles of that type (e.g. Bagatelles, Opus 119 (Beethoven). Don't sweat the title too much, it can be renamed and redirects can be added. DavidRF 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I guess I'll go ahead with 36 Fugues (Reicha) indeed, I like it the best too, and there weren't any other comments here.. if anyone objects, we'll just rename it. Thanks! Jashiin 09:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, it probably should be 36 Fugues...standard practice is to NOT have a title like that redirect to a title with disambig-ness, as it were. On the other hand, since it's such a GENERIC piece title, by a lesser known composer (as opposed to something like The Love for Three Oranges, which used to have (Prokofiev) after it), then bending the rules is ok. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, I went ahead and created 36 Fugues (Reicha); in any case it won't be a problem to fix the redirects, since not many articles are going to link there. Thank you for your reply :) Jashiin 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mendelssohn 5 needs clean-up

Hello. On usenet today someone noticed that wikipedia stated that Symphony No. 5 (Mendelssohn) could be "a clever forgery that has fooled musicologists to this very day". The statement was uncited and initially placed there by an anon back in May. I removed the embarrassing sentence and put a note on the talk page stating such claims are going to require citations. I noticed the whole article is littered with fact-tags in spite of the fact there are some decent references listed. I don't have any of those references and none of my other books have any information on this work. Is anyone out there knowledgeable enough to add footnotes? Thanks. DavidRF 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It's stuff like that which causes people to bash WP for no good reason...I'm sorry I can't help though, all I have is linar notes for my one recording of it, which I doubt is anything much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cage's "Sonatas and Interludes"

Hello,

I've been writing articles about Cage's works during the past week or so, and while I know that contemporary classical music isn't for everyone, I thought that perhaps someone with a knowledge of theory could help me out. While working on Sonatas and Interludes I had to explain Cage's technique of rhythmic proportions, which is kind of simple when you know what it is but very difficult to explain briefly (and without illustrations. I'd gladly make one, except that to explain the technique one needs to see the entire piece, and we can't allow that, especially because the music is just 60 years old). I did my best, though, and thought that someone might be interested to read my explanation and tell me whether I succeeded or not. I'll probably submit the article to Peer review later, but I think that it'd be better if someone who knows something about music theory checked it first.

The passage in question is in the Analysis - Structure section, right below the table ("The main technique Cage used..") Any questions, corrections and suggestions are welcome on the article's talk page (or on my talk page), and if you're interested in helping out with other articles on Cage's works, see Category:Compositions by John Cage or my user page. Thanks! Jashiin 19:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (oh and, once again, if this doesn't belong here, I'm sorry and by all means revert my edit)

Schubert's piano sonatas

Moved to Template talk:Schubert piano sonatas.

Hackneyed hyphen question in key signature

I thought for the longest time the standard was to use hyphens in key signatures, like so: C-sharp minor. All the pages, though, are without, as in C sharp minor, even though the "important" pieces like Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) and Symphony No. 7 (Prokofiev) use hyphens. What's the deal? ALTON .ıl 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are people still active?

In accordance with my usual rule of archiving discussions more than 1 month old, I've realised that we've almost gone 1 month without any activity. Is it just the holiday season or is this WikiProject in danger of becoming inactive? Centy – reply• contribs – 04:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably just the holiday season. "We've almost gone 1 month without any activity" - and without any talk page drama. Be careful what you wish for! :) --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed! And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all my fellow Wikipedians!. Centy – reply• contribs –

Hackneyed hyphen question in key signature

I thought for the longest time the standard was to use hyphens in key signatures, like so: C-sharp minor. All the pages, though, are without, as in C sharp minor, even though the "important" pieces like Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) and Symphony No. 7 (Prokofiev) use hyphens. What's the deal? ALTON .ıl 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to our Article Guidelines, "Key should be capitalized, but "major" and "minor" should be in lower case. For example, C sharp major; D minor." There is no mention of using a hyphen. Thomprod (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the keys were changed last week to include hyphens. To tell you the truth, I thought the standard was no hyphens. I just checked a couple of dozen of my CD's from many labels. Naxos, EMI, Decca, Phillips, Virgin and Hyperion do NOT use hyphens while Sony and Vox do use hyphens. Seems like the hyphen crowd was more vocal here at wikipedia. Not really worth an edit war, but just a heads up that although a few labels do use the hyphens, there isn't really a standard. DavidRF (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

World's biggest free jukebox

Are you folks aware of this? It's a list of free classical music that can can be played with a click of the mouse. The list is woefully incomplete, so volunteers are wanted.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New Wikproject

I've created a new wikiproject, Wikipedia:Wikiproject free music. I think members of this wikiproject, in particular, will be interested. Raul654 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Piano Sonata No. 12

There are, evidently, two of them: one by a certain Mr Beethoven and one by a certain Mr Mozart; you probably haven't heard of either of them. I have created the disambiguation page (see link at the heading), but I am thinking that there is, perhaps, a greater margin for action. The article for Beethoven's sonata is not only about twice as long as the one for Mozart's sonata, but it also makes it seem that it is actually more prominent. And I am reaching the essence of the matter: can Beethoven's sonata qualify as "primary meaning" for "Piano Sonata No. 12"? In other words, is one looking for a Piano Sonata No. 12 much more likely to be looking for Beethoven's sonata than for Mozart's? If so, then the article ought to be moved (and replace the disambiguation page) and a hatnote added to it; after all, the disambiguation page is rather empty, with only two items. If not, then the current state of affairs is perfectly good. Waltham, The Duke of 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Haydn 12th sonata and a fragmentary Schubert 12th sonata. Plus, K332 is not really more obscure than Op. 26, its just that the Beethoven editors have been more thorough in creating pages. Almost all of the ordinally numbered classical pieces are named "Type of Piece No. XX (Composer)", even if a disambiguation is not necessary (e.g. Symphony No. 104 (Haydn)). It would look awfully odd if the list of Beethoven sonata pages went included Piano Sonata No. 11 (Beethoven) and Piano Sonata No. 12. There is a group of disambig pages for symphonies (Template:Symphonies by number and name) but that's more of a fun curiosity than anything useful. Nobody should ever directly to a disambig page. DavidRF (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? Beethoven's sonata is at Piano Sonata No. 12 (Beethoven) and Mozart's at Piano Sonata No. 12 (Mozart) which is consistent with all the other pages on Beethoven's and Mozart's Sonatas. Creating that disambiguation page was totally unnecessary - we don't even have a page for Piano Sonata No. 5. If you really want, why not create a disamb page for every ambiguously numbered Piano Sonata. The naming system used in Wikipedia is fine - there is no bias towards prominence. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem...in fact, I'd say even possibly Piano Sonata No. 12 should be deleted. For starters, they certainly aren't the only two to go up that high. Clementi wrote a bunch (are they ever numbered?), and then there's Scarlatti...but anyway, it seems a bit off to have a disambig page for only certain ones. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that the page was old or that it was created by accident. Most often, these types of disambig pages are really 'dead' pages that are left over after a rename that could not made into simple redirects. Its a pain to get a page deleted. This is a new page, though. I agree there's no problem here and the specific articles should not be changed or renamed. DavidRF (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What about when you type simply "Piano Sonata No. 12" in the search box (and presumably press Go)? I'd rather have the dab page than the vague search results. ALTON .ıl 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but that's a much bigger problem that spans all areas of wikipedia, not just these piano sonatas. Wikipedia simply has a crummy search engine. I always use google to search wikipedia, appending "wiki" to my search to focus google onto here. I do prefer a 'dead' disambig page to those hatnotes, though. The one at the top of Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) is ugly. DavidRF (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alton here, and this is exactly what happened to me: I looked up "Sonata No. 12", not being able to remember whether the piece I was looking for was Sonata No. 2 or 12 (it was actually Chopin's No. 2, inspired by Beethoven's No. 12, and both were mentioned on the radio). Many people are similarly ignorant, and the disambiguation pages are useful in this respect. As DavidRF says, they are harmless. Furthermore, now that I know the naming practices of these articles, I do agree that it is better to preserve the format; standardisation is helpful in such matters (I am actually a member of SBS—and don't miss an opportunity to promote it, as we are short of contributors).

Now, if I were to choose between having no disambiguation pages for identically numbered pieces and having all of them, I should choose the second solution. It is not that much work, and I should be glad to do a great deal of it myself. We just need to be careful enough to be inclusive; I can include the existing pages (after all, typing "Piano Sonata No. X" will take me to a search page), but I do not have the necessary knowledge to include red links. And, now that I think of it, I have just found an argument in favour of the disambiguation pages: they can mention pieces with no articles yet, providing the readers with further information. Waltham, The Duke of 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. I can help, starting with the existing pages that are badly formatted (Symphony No. 1!), but creating all of those is going to be a lot of work, given the many genres and extensive numbers there are out there. Good luck! ALTON .ıl 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, I suppose I had better get to it. I warn you that progress will be slow, especially for the following month, as I have exams I must divert some of my attention to. However, I am confident that this action will improve the readers' navigation experience, even if only a little. Thank you all for your feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 22:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of compositions by Charles Ives

I want to make sure, first of all, that there isn't already a list and I am making a duplicate. I thought it very strange that there wasn't a list for this composer already.

The problem I am having with this list is that, in the current format, it is going to be huge. I'm taking the data from this site, which lists every piece he ever wrote, even if it is just a fragment, in the main lists. Was there an "official" catalogue for Ives' works? The site shows some "work lists" here, but they aren't that helpful and don't seem to be any more official than the comprehensive list. It suggests that there were only a few pieces that were really part of his "opus", and that's what I want to get at. Any ideas? ALTON .ıl 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunter Teuffel

German violia player. Expert evaluation would help.DGG (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Telemann articles

Some rather strange Telemann articles have appeared: Passions (Telemann), Admiralitätsmusik and Cantata Cycle. An adminstrator has at least renamed them, e.g. [1] and removed the duplicate (and not terribly relevant or informative) text e.g. [2] which originally 'introduced' all of them. I've expanded Passions (Telemann) to provide context, background information, recordings, references, etc. But opera is more my field of expertise, so I'm leaving Admiralitätsmusik and Cantata Cycle alone. However, I've tagged them as requiring context and references. Hopefully, someone else will come along and fix them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • update: I've fixed up Cantata Cycle to make it salvageable , although there is still no source for the list. But I've had a good look at Admiralitätsmusik. It's a real mess. I've proposed it for deletion (PROD). (See Talk:Admiralitätsmusik). Best,Voceditenore (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Ataúlfo Argenta

And while I'm at it...I recently came across this article on the Spanish conductor Ataúlfo Argenta, which is definitely not in compliance with verifiability. It is full of original research, conjecture, and the repetition of rumours some of which verge on slander. They may be true, and in a way the 'Biography' (40KB long!!!) would make an interesting magazine article, but...

It has apparently been the subject of persistent attempts by the single purpose account Tilleadh to revert the removal by other editors of the unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially biased information . I added a lead paragraph with inline citations so that readers could at least get some basic verifiable information about the man and chopped the incredibly long remainder of the screed into sections and tagged them as unreferenced and potential original research. However, I've left them as they were written. (no energy to get into an editing tussle). The subject died 50 years ago, although his children are still alive. I've left a notice asking for expert help from the Wikipedia Spain Project. But so far, no one there seems to have taken an interest. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Johann Georg Mozart

A sub-stub article was just added on Leopold's father. Is anything of substance actually known about him? If so, please add it to keep the article from otherwise very likely deletion. If not, please change to a redirect. DGG (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Articles considered for deletion that may benefit from a review by one or more members of this WikiProject.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent

(I am placing this request on the talk page, unsure where to list within the project.) Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FA lists up-to-date?

Hi there. I'm trying to get a list of all FA-class articles covered by this and similar WikiProjects. I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Featured articles/Featured lists (I removed Porgy and Bess, which got demoted a week or so ago) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Featured articles (but nothing for Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music), so I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Featured articles, but I'm not sure if those lists are up-to-date. For example, Beijing opera is not on that list. I'm trying to pick out the classical music and opera articles (and more 'high brow' articles) from the popular culture music articles at Wikipedia:FA#Music. I normally use the relevant subcategories of Category:FA-Class articles, but I don't think the Opera, Composers, or Classical Music wikiprojects use an assessment scheme. So I'm asking here if this list complete? Beijing opera (missing from the opera list), Concerto delle donne, Rebecca Helferich Clarke, Guqin, Blues, Himno Nacional Mexicano, My Belarusy, National Anthem of Russia, Josquin des Prez, Witold Lutosławski, Olivier Messiaen, Mor lam, Leo Ornstein (missing from the composers list), Dmitri Shostakovich, Sonatas and Interludes, Sylvia (ballet), Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), Joseph Szigeti, Thespis (opera) (missing from the opera list), Tōru Takemitsu. I've updated the lists where I can, and made a new section for the Classical Music wikiproject, but I may have missed some - if others could help make sure this is all up-to-date, that would be great. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we don't have that "assessment department" of most other projects; the template WP:CM uses has the "class=??" parameter, but it doesn't automatically categorize anything (Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)). Should we do that, or is it a lot of needless effort? ALTON .ıl 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it does have the class feature, there was a lot of opposition in the past to rating articles, mainly because virtually everything would end up as Start Class. I think the discussion was more heated for classical music biographies, the classical music WikiProjects objected to a WP:BIO bot coming along and sticking a rating on the talk page. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the FA people don't get stressed trying to find our project's featured articles, I created two categories (Category:WikiProject Classical music featured articles, Category:WikiProject Classical music good articles) that lists our featured and good articles. I have however edited the banner to remove the standard class parameter for now. This is just a temporary measure - we should definitely decide whether we want to assess all articles across WP:CM as per other WikiProjects. I personally am against it, as it's a waste of time and achieves little. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow Centy, you rock. It looks great. ALTON .ıl 07:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of us on the Opera Project created a test assessment system for the Richard Wagner project. The assessmments page is here. You may find this is worth looking at as a possible model for this project. BTW personally I don't like assessments but I see them as unavoidable for any project that wants to follow its own guidelines, rather than those of another larger project. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the lines of assessment, I've now installed three levels of assessment into the project banner: FA, GA, stub. Basically these are clean cut assessments unlike the difference between a Start and B class. So use as you please. Centy – reply• contribs – 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For consideration

Regarding Leck mich im Arsch, articles meeting the featured article criteria and passing WP:FAC in time can be considered for the April Fools' mainpage, as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed by Pixelface (talk) that all the articles in Category:Symphonies by Joseph Haydn be merged into that list since he argues all of the symphony articles fail WP:MUSIC, with the exception that symphonies 82 through 87 be merged into Paris symphonies and symphonies 93 through 104 be merged into London symphonies. I suggest that we create a centralised discussion for this since it will have ramifications for individual works by numerous other composers. Any thoughts as to the best venue for this? Current discussion is at Talk:List_of_symphonies_by_Joseph_Haydn#Merge_proposal. Eusebeus (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Why are infoboxes not used for classical artists? They are widely used elsewhere on Wikipedia. They are very useful as a quick reference (and they contain hidden computer-readable information which is useful for re-using information on Wikipedia pages). It is also difficult to see where does this guideline should end: should popular/classical crossover artists and composers, or people like Alexander Borodin who are famous for more than one thing, have an infobox? --h2g2bob (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello h2g2bob, This is been discussed at great length on these pages; please look it up in the Talk page archive. I doubt that the consensus is likely to change (and I certainly hope it doesn't). Opus33 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

h2g2bob is correct, this is not an issue that has gone away...and it will like not go away. there was never any real consensus, as proponents simple grew weary of the vitriol. --emerson7 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the archives before I posted this message, but I can't say I was much the wiser. They arguments presented seem to reference other, related WikiProjects creating a massive circular argument. From what I can understand, the arguments are

1. Infoboxes can contain wrong information, be misleading, be vandelised, etc.
2. Infoboxes duplicate the lead section
3. Infoboxes discourage people from reading the text

The first isn't a reason for removal, only for fixing the infobox. Vandalism and wrong information isn't just limited to the infoboxes, but could appear anywhere. The second is a valid point which I have some sympathy with. However, having a consistent layout to key information can help with checking you have the right page and for quick comparisons. The third point could also be made of the lead section itself. My opinion is that their usefulness outweighs the minor disadvantages.

I'm sure these aren't the entirety of the arguments: as I said, I can't make much sense of the arguments. I can't really see how musicians are different from any other creative people: Shakespere, Blake and many others have infoboxes; the visual arts wikiproject encourages infoboxes. What's the difference? --h2g2bob (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should let sleeping dogs lie - I don't think blanket infoboxes will be introduced for classical musicians before another divisive and heated debate. It's a Pandora's Infobox (if you forgive the pun). Centy – reply• contribs – 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone gave Ludwig van Beethoven an infobox a couple of weeks ago. You can see some of the problems with that one. Each composer would have to 'fit' the template which would mean that certain information would often have to be listed that is just odd. For Beethoven... "Germany" for region? Yes, he was born there, but he spent much of his life in Austria and followed the Viennese tradition of composers. Also, why is that title at the top? "Romanticism" for era? Beethoven's career started in the classical era and helped create the romantic era. He's not solely in one or the other. Then there's the picture? What if there isn't one. Would there be that ghastly ghost head with a "please submit a photo" text for a 17th century composer? The influences are subjective and really need discussion with citations. Its too trite to put any names there. Influenced "Western classical music"? What exactly does that tell you? Anything? None of these issues are unique to Beethoven. In the end, infoboxes *could* be done but its a lot of work and a lot of maintenance for what is basically just birthdate and deathdate. That's already in the first sentence of every article on a person. What other value does this provide? DavidRF (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic problem here is that many people on this project have the thought that they shouldn't be used for ANY person, not just classical musicians...I dunno. I never understood either why composers were special either, but local consensus seems to lie against it. I don't see much of a problem with having them, so long as they keep the silliness like "genre: romantic" or whatever away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth – my stance is that I will only support infoboxes if it can present valuable information that is not already simply listed in the first 2 sentences of an article. Examples of this are battle infoboxes where you can put a more detailed list of commanders and minor combatants as well as the casualty figures - something that would seriously clutter up the opening sentence. The only category that seems to fit this for composers is 'influences and influenced', something which is open to a lot of debate. I remember Turangalila made a very good attempt at an infobox for composers - if any infobox is used, it should be his and not Template:Infobox Composer. Centy – reply• contribs – 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote privately to h2g2bob about the Simon Rattle box before I found this discussion. In addition to the various arguments against biographical infoboxes explained above, these boxes were never intended for classical musicians. They are for popular musicians (with their 'associated acts' etc.) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox where it explains they are "used on a non-classical musician's or musical ensemble's page".

General advice on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes cautions against putting the boxes on arts and science pages without asking first: "Certain biography articles have opposition camps on infoboxes. . . . if you are intending to apply one of the templates to an article about a scientist, academic, or classical composer, musician or singer, first ask on the Talk page." Of course, there are still many areas of WP where biographical infoboxes are welcome and the effort of creating them there will be much appreciated. Thanks for your cooperation. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Snowman has restored the infobox for Simon Rattle. He believes this discussion here must take place on the Simon Rattle talk page, not here. He writes " . . . no one will be expected to read the [Classical Music] talk page about suggestions for the music wikiproject that you refereed to; the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes does specifically state that this discussion about infoboxes should be the articles talk page. Let a consensus build up here as suggested by the project."

Snowman interprets the guideline as meaning that each infobox must remain until a consensus against it has emerged - individually on each page. (Of course, this is the opposite of what the text says.) -- Kleinzach (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)