Talk:Antony and Cleopatra (Barber)

message: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)
There is nothing arbitary in changing this to in-line citations. Pls read the above. And wait for consensus to devlop.
Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Viva Verdi. Wiki footnote guidelines should be followed. This article is pretty wonky in any case and needs any help it gets. Markhh (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that in-line citations are better.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline citations are better than what, exactly? This article has already got inline citations—lots of them. They are formatted as parenthetical references, one of the five types of references sanctioned in the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations. There seems to be confusion here over just what an "inline citation is. The definition given at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations is: "An inline citation is a citation next to the material it supports, rather than at the end of the article. Inline citations are used to directly associate a given claim with a specific source. On Wikipedia, there are several different styles of inline citations. The two most popular are clickable foonotes (<ref> tags) and parenthetical references." Where a citation style has been established, the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Consistent_style says "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." The recent change from parenthetical inline referencing to footnote style is in fact arbitrary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either system is of course acceptable, but, as a reader, I personally find parenthical references more difficult to follow than footnotes. I prefer the footnote format for clarity purposes and would strongly urge this article to adopt that system. Further, if either system is fine, why make such a big fuss Jerome Kohl? Consensus here seems to be going with footnotes and it seems rather POINTY to be getting into a debate over it.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Jerome Kohl is right, and I'm not sure about that, the article should follow the standard ref format in almost every other well-written article in Wikipedia. There's no value in going another way, with clunky, intrusive parenthetical refs. Besides, let's be frank, as it stands this article needs a lot of improvement. I don't think the intention of the original editor, whoever that may be, need be seen as sacred here. Markhh (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I think you will find that I was the "original editor", so far as the inline cetations are concerned. There is no "standard ref format" in Wikipedia (footnote vs parenthetical citation is only a small slice of the reference-format pie). I would suggest you look at a few music articles in particular before jumping to the conclusion that well-written articles always use footnotes. I recommend: Tonality, Atonality, Arnold Schoenberg, Béla Bartók, Milton Babbitt, Luigi Nono, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Symphony, Aleatoric music, and Definition of music. Not all of these eare equally well-written, but some are first-rate, and all use parenthetical referencing. As to expressed opinions, as a reader, I personally find footnote references more difficult to follow than parenthetical references. I prefer the parenthetical format for clarity purposes and would strongly urge this article to retain that system. Having said that, this is not a matter for a popular vote, nor is consensus achieved that way on Wikipedia. If you think I am wrong, please read the cited guidelines carefully first before telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't just a matter of "we've always done it this way". Aside from keeping the main text clear and easy to read, the footnote format has other clear advantages over the parenthetical one that may not be apparent here, as this article is at present quite short. Footnotes allow the reader to click on the note's number/link and be taken right to the note detail and other ref info without having to manually scroll up and down. Also for readers who are interested, all notes may be viewed and studied in one place, at the bottom of the article. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I have read the policies, and I suggest, Jerome Kohl, that you carefully read Wikipedia:Consensus, which seems to agree with using consensus as a means of reaching editorial decisons regarding verifiability (a.k.a. referencing). Further, I find your interpretation of the rules out of balance with WP:OWN. Adding some refs was very useful, but certainly your formatting decision was personal and not obligatory. What we have here, is a choice of several referencing styles which are all acceptable, but not necessarily all desirable. It seems clear, that the majority of editors prefer the use of footnotes over parenthical references. There is a consensus in this discussion for footnotes. Therefore, footnotes should be used. When any article starts valuing the contributions of a single editor as "authoratative", I think the very spirit of wikipedia has been violated.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: With respect, I suggest you re-read the section Wikipedia:Consensus#What_consensus_is. "Consensus" is not the rule of the mob. It requires persuasion, and I am not persuaded that there is a valid reason to change the established citation format in this article. To claim that "most Wikipedia articles use footnotes" as a reason is the same logical error as claiming that, because more editors on the English Wikipedia are Americans than British, that American English is the standard that must be adhered to in all articles. Wikipedia policy does not say that a group of three or four editors have the power to change the style or format of an article (provided that it adheres to the guidelines provided), just because they momentarily outnumber editors of a contrary point of view. If you can come up with a real reason for changing this format (and not just "I like footnotes better"), then I am willing to listen. So far, this remains a "beauty contest", and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
To Markhh: I'm surprised that you can claim footnotes get in the reader's way less than parenthetical citations, since the latter do not require the reader to move his eyes away from the main text in order to see the citation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually I agree with Markhh. Further, one still has to scroll down to read the name of the source in parenthetical references as well. You can easily click on footnotes and then click back to where you were when moving back and forth. That's a feature parenthical references don't provide, and it's therefore easy to lose your place when scrolling back and forth. Another reason, why footnotes are better. You're arguements concerning consensus continue to bother me. I do not like your 'I was here first, so what I say goes' mentality. 4meter4 (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes. But this discussion belongs over on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, since it concerns the general practice of citation formats on Wikipedia. This page is for discussing the article on Barber's Antony and Cleopatra. I'm still waiting for someone to offer a reason why the formats in this article (as opposed to all Wikipedia articles) should be changed. FWIW, I can think of two arguments that might be raised, but I'll not bring them up, since I am in opposition to the change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In line citations: see Use of Notes/Footnotes 

message: In my opinion this section doesn't require complete discography information of an album by Leontyne Price. The only information relevant in this article is the recording of the Antony arias themselves, by Price and Schippers for RCA in 1968. (Recording dates are listed in the credits for the CD release, June 1-2, 1968.)   Best wishes Markhh (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are presenting a conundrum here. What are you going to use as a reliable source to document the dates of recording, unless you provide a proper reference to this CD release? The original LP release of 1969 does not list the recording date of the two arias, nor of the accompanying Knoxville: Summer of 1915. Also, if a commercial release is not important, then I might suggest including the recording of the Metropolitan Opera world premiere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The catalog number of the CD can be listed as a reference for the recording date of the Antony arias, yes. But my point is that the entire title and contents of the CD release, "Knoxville..." and "Hermit Songs", don't belong here because they don't have anything to do with Antony and Cleopatra. Likewise the complete contents of the LP as currently listed including "Knoxvillle..." doesn't pertain here, in my opinion. Best, Markhh (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose there is any problem with that, in principle. (Are the Hermit Songs on the CD, then? They were recorded much earlier than 1968, and certainly were not included on the LP release.) The issue really is one of discography formats, which are much less standardized than the ones used for books and journal articles. What worries me in such cases is the question of publication—that is, there are a great many recordings that exist, without ever having been offered for sale as commercial releases or, sometimes, suddenly appearing forty years or more after they were recorded.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recordings