Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 3

message: A radical proposition: why not slap it all into a table and float it to the right, then explicate in accompanying text? ALTON .ıl 00:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like we used to say, let's not and say we did. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that that might be a good idea.  Either that or some kind of template (I don't exactly know how templates work, so I don't know if one would work here.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that idea that much. It may be better just to put it as text in the article. A box or a table can attract too much attention, I think. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am agreeing to Turangalila's comments. The bulleted "list" for Symphony No. 3 (Lutoslawski) is the "compromise", where instruments are grouped in families. It's not really a hybrid format. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The String section article is brand new this week.  Is there ever a need to clarify the details of the string orchestration?  Maybe not in the numbers -- which vary from orchestra to orchestra -- but in the number of parts?  Lots of Mozart historians make a big deal out of presence of "divided violas".DavidRF 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably difficult to make a hard and fast rule. Do you point out that the extremes of divisi in Don Quixote imply a minimum number of strings? (might be too much detail) Or that some 20th Century composers (Xenakis comes to mind for some reason) specify exact numbers? (probably yes, important to the structure) Or that Berlioz specified some minimum numbers (probably yes, for historical interest). David Brooks 00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, since you asked for it: yea for your endorsement of instrumentation over orchestration (actually, technically speaking, orchestration is the task of assigning parts—melody and harmony—to particular instruments, but it's clearly different from instrumentation). But unfortunately nay to the "expandable list" idea. For the vast majority of pieces, the standard, compact list form is more than adequate, and in any case is what you'll find out there in the Real World in writing about classical music. The few more complex pieces can be easily handled by a list divided into sections, as the modification proposed here, somewhere. Such an expandable table (which, so far as I know, isn't possible here anyhow: Wikipedia doesn't incorporate any Javascript elements, which I think would be required for such a scheme) would be overkill. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid starting a edit war, I'll put my reasoning here - cor anglais is a far more common name for the English horn. This is shown by the fact the Wiki page is actually Cor anglais rather than English horn (which redirects). There are people who have images of the French horn and brass instruments if you mention the English horn to them. Centy 10:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 2

message: There is currently a poll running for this discussion. It is open to all. The poll will close on Sunday, April 22 at noon UTC. I am not familiar as to how polls are run, but just sign your name under one of the four categories.
: The poll has now closed. The general opinion is to divide up the instruments into their respective families. (point 3). That would seem to be the general consensus. If it is still not agreed upon, discuss this below the poll. (Some users are supporting the list, while some are introducing the table.)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy M. Wang (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: For the sake of those of us with primitive equipment I'd like to propose moving this discussion to its own separate archive page, and updating the links on the project page.  It seems like a decision has been reached which renders this more-or-less moot or historical, and it's super long.  I'll leave some time to see if there are any objections. thx—Turangalila talk 01:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  Opus33 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive discussion and poll?

message: I've made a template page for our userbox more in line with the other WikiProjects:  and it also looks neater. Is it OK if I update the front page with the new link?
Secondly I think we should also have a template so we can put on the talk pages of classical music articles that this article falls into the scope of WP Classical like they do for other WikiProjects. This will allow us in the future to rate each article.
Lastly I've noticed that the categories are quite organised. I hope we can keep it this way rather than letting the number of categories explode and then making it very difficult for authors of new articles to remember which categories their article(s) fall under. Also maybe we should note somewhere on the front page how many classical music categories we have.
Centy 01:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do change the userbox, make sure that a bot updates it on people's userpages.  I don't see any difference between the two myself, but whatever.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the bot request. Call me slightly obessesive compulsive, but our userbox seemed slightly smaller than the standard size. Centy 13:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've edited the float properties of the userbox. Currently it forces the text to go above and below the userbox. This is OK when incorporated into prose like on this page, but if you notice on your userpage for example, the old userbox messes about the table due to the fact it doesn't have floating properties. Hopefully the new userbox will correct this. Centy 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's actually policy now that userbox templates are supposed to be hosted on subpages in the [User:] namespace.  I think it's calle the Great Userbox Migration or some such; you can do a Google search.  It's probably worth checking before the Template gets deleted or whatever.—Turangalila talk 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are OK as our userbox is of encyclopediac value given if identifies users as part of a WikiProject. It seems most other WikiProjects' userboxes still a Template page rather than a userpage. Centy 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I see the difference now.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 18:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox, Template and Categories 

message: I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music),  Please add new comments there, thanks.—Turangalila talk
I wanted to call attention here to my attempt at the music-MoS talkpage to generate a better consensus standard for writing the names of "black key" notes or keys on WP.  Majority usage right now seems to favor writing out "sharp" or "flat," since those Unicode #'s and b's are a browser access problem...but there's alot of variation in using the hyphenated form ("C-sharp") versus the non-hyphenated ("C sharp").
I strongly favor the hyphenated form.  It's one note and should be one word; I think most browsers won't put a linebreak in the middle of the hyphenated form; there's a difference between a B-flat and a "flat B"; and, well, I just like it better.  To me "A-flat major" just looks right, while "A flat major" could be a two-dimensional commander.  My books and scores mostly use the symbols, but seem to favor the hyphen when they don't.  
Anyway, I think the style should be consistent if possible, and I'd appreciate folks chiming in on either side -- probably better over at MoS page.  Thanks, —Turangalila talk 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the actual Wikipages for B flat major etc. get hyphenated, I would be wary of going on a hyphenating spree just yet. Centy 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm hoping to achieve a consensus for the MoS first, then change/move the article titles as necessary.  Redirects should be available in either case, but my object is a standardized style, which doesn't yet exist. —Turangalila talk 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Key names shouldn't be hyphenated: I believe that if you look at the literature, "naked" keys are the norm. (Points for humor by Turangalila, though, as in the answer to the riddle: "What do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft?"). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the points, but I'm not sure there even is a "norm".  Most books on my shelves use the symbols; among those that don't, my Baker's, my Maynard Solomon Beethoven, and the translations in all my Dover scores use hyphens, while my Paul Henry Lang and Kobbe's use the "naked" style.   I just think within WP it should be one or the other, & personally I feel the hyphenated style is clearer. —Turangalila talk 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style:  Naming notes or keys (see MoS) 

message: I mentioned this above; either it got lost in the bullets vs paragraph discussion, or maybe it was just ignored as a dumb idea, but what the hell...
Consensus seems to favor the "the piece is scored for..." section being titled Instrumentation.  But there's still alot of dissonance out there; many articles still use Orchestration.  Plus there's some ambiguity in Instrumentation:  
*what about pieces with singers and dancers, or no "instruments" at all?
*for nonmusicians it probably calls to mind the stuff on the dashboard of their car...
*looking it up on WP won't help much (I did revise Instrumentation (music) a bit...)
I note that the guideline here uses the phrase musical forces.  What about using that, or at least mentioning it (or just Forces or some other variant) as an option?  
Like I said, I might just be overthinking this, but I thought I'd toss it out there...—Turangalila talk 20:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, there's also something to be said for letting individual editors make informed judgments - let's not micromanage.  I think all that is really at stake is IL2BA's dislike (which I think is reasonable) for "orchestration" used to mean "instrumentation", and other than that, a flexible system would be best.  Cheers, Opus33 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; but the current language on the project page ("strong consensus...") is rather prescriptive.  I know I'm the one who put that wording in, but I didn't want to soften it or add other options w/o consensus.—Turangalila talk 19:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More style:  Instrumentation...Orchestration...Forces? 

message: We have a worrying small number of classical music articles at FA status compared to that of more contemporary music. I know there's been a collaborative drive to bring Beethoven to FA status.
However, maybe we should also look at bringing some of the articles on classical works to GA status. Some of them will have too little to bring them to FA status, but surely with enough references on the basic structure of the music and a little section of its history, background, and cultural impact (all with adequate references) should surely bring some of the pieces to GA status.
Being utterly biased, I'm hoping to bring Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) up to GA status once I lay my hands on a authoritative text. However I see great potential in the two big Rachmaninov Piano concertos and the Beethoven symphonies. There must be a mountain of literature out there, surely enough to bring at least GA status to these pages! 
Centy 01:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Centy, I diffidently recommend that we not make a big effort in this direction.  The problem is that if you make a public effort to get FA or GA status for a classical music article, then you attract the involvement of people who don't know anything about classical music, and the article actually gets worse!  [By this I mean:  unsourced edits, bad prose, contentless infoboxes, and irrelevant pop culture references.]  Better to take quiet pride in doing a careful and conscientious job, and let the FA and GA awards keep on going to articles about sitcoms.  Just a thought...  Yours truly, Opus33 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would not oppose working to bring these to FA status, but like Opus I agree that the best way to go about this is the way the classical music clique has always been, quietly. I would love working on all those pieces mentioned, but I never see the benefit of creating a collaboration, because members will inevitably fail to persevere till the goal. Speaking of which, we should work together on that newsletter... ALTON .ıl 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA and FA status 

message: Copying something I wrote  in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music):
Hopefully this will be less contentious than the whole hyphen discussion. When a piece a music is written in a major key, can we make it a policy to actually write in major instead of just leaving it out. Eg. it will be Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D major, instead of just Beethoven's Violin Concerto in D.
There are many pages where anything in a major key loses the word major. Although we may know what we mean, this is highly ambiguous and confusing for new people. (Someone once asked me how Mozart wrote an entire symphony using just one note).
Centy 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Keys