Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner)

message: with tempo markings.  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock yourself out, no one's stopping you.  Be sure to look at the Haas hybrid score, Nowak's editions of both the 1887 and 1892 versions, and not just at the first page of each movement.  Have fun resolving slightly different German words that conductors wind up interpreting as almost the exact same metronome marking (not as bad as in No. 3, but still quite enough grist for musicologists).James470 (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know them.  That's actually why I came here.  :-)  I'm pretty new to Bruckner.  I'll see what I can find, but figured since the article is so extensive and well-footnooted for everything but the tempo markings that others might be a better source.  I'll look.DavidRF (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I check, the tempo markings, at least at the beginning of each movement, are consistent across the Haas hybrid and Nowak's edition of the two versions. But there might still be some point in the middle where "Langsam ruhig" becomes "Ruhiger, langsam" or something along those lines. James470 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  request standard movement list 

message: The article has an infobox, dating back to 2007. It was a different infobox then, which was merged with . On 1 July, the publishing information, which is relevant for most of Bruckner's major work, was collapsed. and at the same time the information about the performers of the first recording removed.
* Publishing: collapsing defies the purpose of an infobox of showing something at first glance. Here, it's only four lines, no need to collapse.
* Performers: if the former template had the performers, we should adapt the new one to do the same. Also,  have two lines of parameter name and then present only a year looks strange. 
I responded by presenting the version shown. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that the purpose of the infobox is to "identify key facts at a glance...and exclude any unnecessary content", and that the "first recording" parameter looks strange. I have now addressed both issues. Thank you for your feedback. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not feel understood: the editor who created the infobox (in 2007) felt that the publication versions and the first recording ARE key facts. The many readers since did not object, and I agree also. Now you come, collapse three lines, remove information. Why? For whom? - Later you even removed the three lines. Why? For whom?? - You and I agree that the recording information should not look as if it was part of the premiere, therefore I changed the template. I believe that the information about the performers should show, about which our article informs us: "In 1934 it merged with the Stadttheater-Orchester to become the Philharmonisches Staatsorchester Hamburg (the name under which it recorded a celebrated Eighth Symphony of Anton Bruckner under Eugen Jochum in 1949)." - To be celebrated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the infobox that was here in 2007 is no longer here, and we know that few readers ever comment either positively or negatively about articles. It serves the reader better to be able to explain - just seeing the name in a box doesn't tell the significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  We've been debating this issue over and over in classical music articles.  This IDONTLIKEIT debate must stop.  Nikki, I am extremely disappointed in you for your constant attempts to WP:BAIT Gerda and then hope for a "gotcha" if she makes any small gesture of impatience at you.  And no, "It serves the reader better to be able to explain" is a false equivalency; people can have textual explanations AND an infobox.  You know nothing about educational theory, learning domains, visual learning or anything else about how people absorb information; you only know how YOU like things, and you seem incapable of having any understanding that information is best transmitted to the largest audience when presented in ways that allow different styles of learners to grasp what they need.  The ongoing metadata and graphic design debates notwithstanding, "facts at a glance" is a perfectly valid way to convey information.  Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If people couldn't have textual explanations AND an infobox, then we would include no infoboxes, anywhere. We are not at that point. However, certain things are better represented by textual explanations than by infoboxes, just as other things are better expressed in tabular format than in text. ILIKEIT is of equal value to IDONTLIKEIT. As to what I know or hope, you don't know. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is only your opinion that certain things are not proper for an infobox.  Others disagree, and they are neither wrong nor ignorant. Relevant facts in an infobox neither mandate nor preclude information in text.  As a passer-by with a casual interest in classical music, I prefer facts at a glance in the infobox and use that to skip to a few parts of the article where I have my interest piqued.  On a different topic where I have a stronger background, perhaps classic rock, for example, I might dive into the text and read most of the article, infobox or no.  Neither of us can judge fully what another reader may find valuable, hence a good reason for knowledgable editors to help readers by making sure the most pertinent factoids appear in an infobox - to draw the reader into the article.  A pretty picture with a glorified caption is not an infobox.    Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's not what this article has. But we as knowledgeable editors are mandated to avoid infobox bloat, and this means that not every reader will find every factoid that might possibly be of interest in the infobox. It cannot be everything to everybody while maintaining its role as an "at-a-glance" resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your definition of "infobox bloat" differs from mine.  My definition of "bloat" begins roughly at say, the infobox of Serena Williams.  Not this article.  Your accusation that I want to see "every factoid" is misplaced; I think that information that clarifies basic details is generally appropriate.  Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Information that clarifies basic details is generally appropriate in the article text; only the basic details themselves belong in the box. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, there is a difference of opinion on what constitutes "basic" - oversimplification can be inaccurate, sometimes a bit of detail is necessary.  The key issue is one; the infobox could easily add a plainlist of the key changes in this work, also the multiple issues indicated in the sample here of multiple dates appears to be significant.  I really don't see why the sample box here couldn't be used.  Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course oversimplification can be inaccurate - that's an argument against infoboxes, period. But going too far in the other direction is not the solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not turn this into a discussion about infoboxes in general (that battle is over anyway, well over half of all wikipedia articles, and most of the GA and FA ones have them).  The issue is if we use the useful one above or what's in there now, which is nothing more than a picture with a bloated caption, IMHO.  Montanabw(talk) 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So in your opinion what's in there now is not useful? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: "...although there are performances running as long as 103 minutes.[42]" 
Celibidache, Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, 1993 Live in Lisbon, lasts 103'. I suggest to delete the Mark Stryker reference, since it's very vague, and cite this recording. I don't know how to do this properly. 
Herbmuell (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sergiu Celibidache, Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, 12-09-1993 - EMI CDC 5 56696 2 (Discography of the Symphony No. 8 in C Minor). I have cited the recording and removed the death link (Mark Stryker reference). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also added a in-text ref () for the "standard" duration of about 80 min. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  103'-recording 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Symphony No. 8 (Bruckner). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/dkgriegel/versions.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified